Skull Cult at Gobekli Tepe?

[circumspice]

Not for nothing, but your definition of a henge is incorrect. Rather, the definition is exactly as Tiompan rendered it. We should at least agree on something that basic. Maybe the term has been corrupted over the years and loosely applied to stone or wooden post circles, but that does not make it correct.

Hi shawomet -

If you want to be understood by the masses, try changing your professional definition to the one used by them.

So EP... Does this mean that you're talking down to the Great Unwashed? Sounds a bit snobbish & arrogant to me.

[Tiompan]

Not for nothing, but your definition of a henge is incorrect. Rather, the definition is exactly as Tiompan rendered it. We should at least agree on something that basic. Maybe the term has been corrupted over the years and loosely applied to stone or wooden post circles, but that does not make it correct.

Hi shawomet -

If you want to be understood by the masses, try changing your professional definition to the one used by them.

So EP... Does this mean that you're talking down to the Great Unwashed? Sounds a bit snobbish & arrogant to me.

Considering he used the same wrong definition here ,regularly , he was either talking down to us , or as is really the case , he got it wrong and the above is only another evasion .

[E.P. Grondine]

I will continue to use "henge" as it is popularly understood:

Henge = a large stone or wooden post set in astronomical alignment.

As in the "woodhenge" at Cahokia, etc.

I do not know if I will even footnote your objections to the use of the word "henge" in this way.

Finally, the central pillars in the enclosures at Gobekli Tepe appear to be henges,
as is shown on the inscribed plaque.
But we'll have to see if this holds with the recovery of more artifacts.
When more are found, we can return to this discussion then.

[Tiompan]

You use what ever definition you like ,if you happen to be discussing henges with anyone with any knowledge of the subject anywhere ,including in the US ,you will either cause confusion or be corrected , if you stick to your wilfully ignorant definition .


We appreciate that you are incapable of accepting facts that don't fit into your world view ,and we can't teach an old dog new tricks ,or as it appears even old tricks .

Simply ,your definition is wrong .
It has actually become even more wrong . The central pillars at GT are obviously not henges .That is yet another of your fantasies .
Even the alt nuts wouldn't make such an error .
Look at the pics .The plaques do no not show "pillars" , your fantasy is based on approx nine light incisions ,which could be interpreted as anything you like .

[E.P. Grondine]

good afternoon, tiompan -

If and when someone in the US raises the issue, I'll discuss it with them.

In the meantrme I'll continue to use the common working definition here.

As far as the inscribed plaques go, I've given you my best estimate.
The same goes for the orientation of the pillars.

I have never been the type of person to let theory interfere with data.
If you want to show that the Holocene Start Impacts did not occur,
the burden of proving that is now on you.

[Tiompan]

If and when someone in the US raises the issue, I'll discuss it with them.

In the meantrme I'll continue to use the common working definition here.:

There are plenty in the US who know the true definition and it's nothing like what you believed .
You were told the actual definition years ago . If you choose to ignore it , fine , live in wilful ignorance .

As far as the inscribed plaques go, I've given you my best estimate.
The same goes for the orientation of the pillars.

Don't bother . Like your definitions , they will be made up and not be based on any knowledge of the subject matter .

I have never been the type of person to let theory interfere with data.

Lol , what you have shown is that you have never let data interfere with your fantasies .

[E.P. Grondine]

Tiompan -

The data is what it is.

What I have given you is the functional definition of word "henge" as it is commonly used.

Q.E.D.

Now instead of abuse, why don't you provide all of us
with the word you use to label a large stone or wooden post set in astronomical alignment?
That is, if you have one.
If you don't, then say so.

[Tiompan]

E.P. ,
Here are 2 versions of your "definitions " . 1)“Henge = a large stone or wooden post set in astronomical alignment.“ 2)"Either stones or wooden posts set up in a circle, with those elements set up in astronomical alignments. “.
Note the disparity ? Probably not . 1) is singular with no reference to the rest of the alignment whether it has one or more components set in a line or circle .2)is plural and only circular meaning that there can only be two components for any one alignment .That is not functional . They differ and there are terms for the components in each case . More to the point ,neither is the definition of a henge .
The most common term for a circular monument of posts is usually timber circle ,similarly for stone ,it would be stone circle ( although ,like henges , there are many different types).Single posts are just that stones are standing stones /menhir .
See below for context .They may be found within or surrounding henges but they are not the henge .
What I gave you years ago was the correct definition of Henge . That you have wilfully continued to use the wrong and even differing definitions of the term is your problem .
It is also ours , in that your continued evasion of the fact wastes space and time .


That you don't know the terminology associated with markers or indicators in putative or possibly genuine archaeoastronmical alignments is telling .
Maybe if you had actually read some Thom instead of making up nonsense like ""by the way, the Thom's hypothesis about the henges is now established doctrine",
you might have learnt some of the terminology and be capable of responding meaningfully .
Fwiw it depends on context , two terms were used above ,others are backsight and foresight .

[E.P. Grondine]

E.P. ,
Here are 2 versions of your "definitions " . 1)“Henge = a large stone or wooden post set in astronomical alignment.“ 2)"Either stones or wooden posts set up in a circle, with those elements set up in astronomical alignments. “.
Note the disparity ? Probably not . 1) is singular with no reference to the rest of the alignment whether it has one or more components set in a line or circle .2)is plural and only circular meaning that there can only be two components for any one alignment .That is not functional . They differ and there are terms for the components in each case . More to the point ,neither is the definition of a henge .
The most common term for a circular monument of posts is usually timber circle ,similarly for stone ,it would be stone circle ( although ,like henges , there are many different types).Single posts are just that stones are standing stones /menhir .
See below for context .They may be found within or surrounding henges but they are not the henge .
What I gave you years ago was the correct definition of Henge . That you have wilfully continued to use the wrong and even differing definitions of the term is your problem .
It is also ours , in that your continued evasion of the fact wastes space and time .

That you don't know the terminology associated with markers or indicators in putative or possibly genuine archaeoastronmical alignments is telling .
Maybe if you had actually read some Thom instead of making up nonsense like ""by the way, the Thom's hypothesis about the henges is now established doctrine",
you might have learnt some of the terminology and be capable of responding meaningfully .
Fwiw it depends on context , two terms were used above, others are backsight and foresight .

I only saw Thom's work at a display while in London in 1974 or so. I was heading for SW Scotland, and really did not have mush interest in British megalithic
(and still do not.)

While in London, I also purchased a copy of Brill's "The Gospel According to Thomas", Coptic text and translation , which was much more interesting, and still is. I used the libraries in London for Saint's lives and materials on the Pelagian heretics.

As you already know, I arrived at Definition 1 came after my first attempt with Definition 2.
so stating them in reverse order to confuse the issue will not work.
I know what a "menhir" is. I know what a "post" is. I know what a "monolith" is. I know what a "capstone" is.

Now in this rant of yours about my ignorance you left out the old definition for "henge",
which was applied in Britain to various and very different types of earth structures.
"stone circle" and "wooden circle" are both not not specific to astronomical structures.
I did not feel it necessary to bring up backsight and foresight.
As is well known, these may be natural features

I will continue to use the word "henge", as in Definition 1,
as it is very useful and effective in communication.
My colleague Flecther suspects that the beveled edges of Adena monoliths may have had an astronomical use,
but without finding one in situ we can not know.

I have no intention of lowering myself to becoming an arrogant lout.
SCIENCE CAN NOT WORK THAT WAY.

[Tiompan]

EP ,
You have once evaded the problem, yet again that your definitions (plural because you have given two differing definitions ) of Henge is demonstrably wrong .
It gets more laughable by the post .

As you already know, I arrived at Definition 1 came after my first attempt with Definition 2.

What I do know is that both are wrong , the order doesn't matter , and your comment shows that you are making it up as you go along whilst wilfully ignoring the the truth .
You asked for the the terminology and were given it .
To continually evade the problems and remain wilfully ignorant whislt wasting our time is arrogant and loutish .
Simple communication does not work when one wilfully uses the wrong terminology , never mind science ,which has no relationship to any of your comments .

[E.P. Grondine]

E.P. ,
Here are 2 versions of your "definitions " . 1)“Henge = a large stone or wooden post set in astronomical alignment.“ 2)"Either stones or wooden posts set up in a circle, with those elements set up in astronomical alignments. “.
Note the disparity ? Probably not . 1) is singular with no reference to the rest of the alignment whether it has one or more components set in a line or circle .2)is plural and only circular meaning that there can only be two components for any one alignment .That is not functional . They differ and there are terms for the components in each case . More to the point ,neither is the definition of a henge .
The most common term for a circular monument of posts is usually timber circle ,similarly for stone ,it would be stone circle ( although ,like henges , there are many different types).Single posts are just that stones are standing stones /menhir .
See below for context .They may be found within or surrounding henges but they are not the henge .
What I gave you years ago was the correct definition of Henge . That you have wilfully continued to use the wrong and even differing definitions of the term is your problem .
It is also ours , in that your continued evasion of the fact wastes space and time .


That you don't know the terminology associated with markers or indicators in putative or possibly genuine archaeoastronmical alignments is telling .
Maybe if you had actually read some Thom instead of making up nonsense like ""by the way, the Thom's hypothesis about the henges is now established doctrine",
you might have learnt some of the terminology and be capable of responding meaningfully .
Fwiw it depends on context , two terms were used above ,others are backsight and foresight .

[E.P. Grondine]

tiompan, now that you've satisfied yourself as to how stupid I am, here's my response - a footnote:

"footnote #) While "Henge used to be limited to a Neolithic or Bronze Age monument of the British Isles, consisting of a circular bank or ditch enclosing, variously, stone or timber uprights, burial pits, etc. or a circular area, often containing a circle of stones or sometimes wooden posts, dating from the Neolithic and Bronze Ages, in modern usagethe word “Henge is generally used to refer to a large stone or wooden post set in astronomical alignment."

I offer this footnote for free usage under creative commons, so either Collins or Hancock may use it, or anyone else, for that matter.

This reminds me of the crap I got about my use of the term "homo heidelbergensis" when I first published "Man and Impact in the Americas".
At that time in the footnotes I pointed out the lack of a common term among the physical anthropologists to refer to the early robust erectus which emigrated out of Afica, as well as their general lack of agreement on terms.

Since you make mention of the remains on the Nabta Plateau,
please note also that I used the term "henge" to describel the Yuchi "henge" reported in contact accounts.

As I've already shown you that your definition of "henge" does not hold in the Americas
would you please take this up with the other people working here instead of wasting my own time?

I am more interested in the find spots of the plaques in the GT region,
and later Near Eastern constellation systems.
But all in all, as Fletcher and myself have our hands full with site surveys,
if anyone wants us to analyze GT then they'll have to pay for it.

[Tiompan]

tiompan, now that you've satisfied yourself as to how stupid I am, here's my response - a footnote:

E.P. I showed how ignorant you are , it was you, who by your behaviour , satisfied us about your stupidity . You are still getting wrong .Henge ,in any usage , modern or otherwise is not what you suggest . Nobody who knows the meaning of the word would accept yours ,it's just gobbledygook and wrong .

Since you make mention of the remains on the Nabta Plateau,
please note also that I used the term "henge" to describel the Yuchi "henge" reported in contact accounts.

First it's not Nabta Plateau , it's Nabta Playa .Further , the site is not on a plateau it's in basin .And of course it is not a henge it is stone circle ,as you were told years ago . See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabta_Playa .Note that it is described as a stone circle not a henge , for a very good reason .
If you described the Yuchi monuments as henges and used your definition , then they are not henges .I wonder what they really , how do real archaeologists describe them ?

As I've already shown you that your definition of "henge" does not hold in the Americas .

You have shown nothing except your ignorance and inability to learn .Of course it holds ,ask any Americans who know about the subject .

But all in all, as Fletcher and myself have our hands full with site surveys,
if anyone wants us to analyze GT then they'll have to pay for it.

Lol ,poverty beckons then eh? But maybe not there are plenty of gullible nuts who never learn .

[E.P. Grondine]

E.P. I showed how ignorant you are , it was you, who by your behaviour , satisfied us about your stupidity. You are still getting wrong. Henge ,in any usage , modern or otherwise is not what you suggest . Nobody who knows the meaning of the word would accept yours ,it's just gobbledygook and wrong .

Take it up with the folks at Cahokia, tiompan.

First, it's not Nabta Plateau , it's Nabta Playa.Further , the site is not on a plateau it's in basin .

Thank you.

And of course it is not a henge it is stone circle ,as you were told years ago . See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabta_Playa .
Note that it is described as a stone circle not a henge, for a very good reason.

Note carefully that if this tone ring's elements have an astronomical alignment, then it is a henge.

If you described the Yuchi monuments as henges and used your definition , then they are not henges.
I wonder what they really , how do real archaeologists describe them ?

As the Yuchi festivities were astronomically timed,
the archaeologists here define it as a "henge"

I've already shown you that your definition of "henge" does not hold in the Americas .

You have shown nothing except your ignorance and inability to learn .
Of course it holds, ask any Americans who know about the subject.

PLease fgo and rant at the folks at Cahokia.

As Fletcher and myself have our hands full with site surveys,
if anyone wants us to analyze GT then they'll have to pay for it.

LOL, poverty beckons then eh? But maybe not there are plenty of gullible nuts who never learn .

That is simply a statement of the resources required.
We have a full agenda right here.

You may measure your wealth in terms of money, tiompan;
I measure mine in terms of lives saved.

There is no lottery to sponsor archaeological work in the US.
Archaeologists here are not very wealthy.

No one working on Native American history does it for the money.
Are you familiar with Lord Kingsbury?

Tiompan, you are well on your way to becoming a footnote to history:

"footnote #) While the word "henge" used to be limited to a Neolithic or Bronze Age monument of the British Isles, consisting of a circular bank or ditch enclosing, variously, stone or timber uprights, burial pits, etc,. or yo a circular area, often containing a circle of stones or sometimes wooden posts, dating from the Neolithic and Bronze Ages, in modern usage the word “henge is generally used to refer to a large stone or wooden post set in astronomical alignment."

[Tiompan]

Note that if its elements have an astronomical alignment, then its a henge.

Still in denial . Think of the vast array of monuments that have putative alignments that are not henges .
Then think of the very small number of henges that may have astro alignments . Then learn the definition of henge as understood by plenty of US researchers who know the subject .

If you described the Yuchi monuments as henges and used your definition , then they are not henges.
I wonder what they really , how do real archaeologists describe them ?

As the Yuchi festivities were astronomically timed,
the archaeologists here define it as a "henge"

Festivities are not monuments or henges . Did you miss the question ? "how do real archaeologists describe them ?"
Provide info the monuments ,if you can .

That is simply a statement of the resources required.

I was thinking more along the lines of how others would happily do it free and questioning the ability .
If it is anything like what we have seen here you might get a few bucks for the laughs .