PPN notes
Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2015 10:21 am
A nicely illustrated internet site by a local guide:
http://www.kultureltatil.com/yazarlar/c ... itepe.html
http://www.kultureltatil.com/yazarlar/c ... itepe.html
Your source on the web for daily archaeology news!
https://archaeologica.org/forum/
E.P. Grondine wrote:http://www.kultureltatil.com/yazarlar/c ... itepe.html
E.P. Grondine wrote:http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1086 ... nfirm=true
George, I don't have to read Collins for a good laugh, I can read Lepper or Shiels.Tiompan wrote:With , thankfully , no mention of Collins .Although worryingly there is a mention of "The “Hanging Gardens” of Göbekli Tepe," by Constantinos Ragazas whichE.P. Grondine wrote:http://www.kultureltatil.com/yazarlar/c ... itepe.html
is even more hilarious than even you could manage ,and highly recommended for the laugh .
Its nice to be discussing the data instead of Collins' understanding of it.Tiompan wrote:The laughs are to be found in Ragazas , it's a gold mine , as are all the "papers " he writes .
Banning made some claims for the the source of the obsidian , but as far as I know there has been no provenacing of obsidian from GT (very little there, approx 6 pieces ) or KT (50 pieces ?) .
Here in the States we have the term "henge" being used at Cahokia, as well as to describe a Yuchi poled astronomical structure.Tiompan wrote: One of your problems is your definition of henge is not the actual definition of the term. The actual definition, not mine, which is the one I abide with.
When we make up up our own definitions we can't communicate properly ,that's why I pointed out the error.
Good, Then get to your points quickly, and stop hinting around.Tiompan wrote: I also have more serious problems to deal with than correcting your errors .
Well, either the site in Syria, which I posted the info on above, is representative of the global climate collapse with special deposition mechanisms, or it is an indicator of a local impact.Tiompan wrote: Good paper . What has it to do with GT ?
(It is always a pain in the butt to convert from calibrated radio carbon dates to the absolute calendric dates used in astronomy.)Tiompan wrote: Do you know when GT was built ? Some of the earliest dates are 9559 ± 53 BP , like Collins and Hancock and all the other nuts who mix up BC and BP and don't understand calibration, you probably imagine, despite the huge chronological difference between the events , that there is a connection.
Be sure to drop a note to the folks working at Cahokia.Tiompan wrote: To repeat it is not my personal definition "Henge " , you are the one who is introducing a definition that would not be accepted by any archaeologist who knew what they were talking about .
It was not a hint ,but a clear statement .
See https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=henge ... 7AaSz7ioAw
http://thesaurus.historicengland.org.uk ... m_no=70096
If you or others make up your own definitions then there is a problem in communicating the simplest of info .
Yes, very criticalTiompan wrote: It may be a pain to calibrate dates, but again it is critical ,
If you think the confusion over the Younger Dryas definition is bad, you ought to see what is happening with "asteroid" and "comet":Tiompan wrote: otherwise we get the rubbish spouted by the fantasists associating the YDih with the building of GT when they differ by three millenia .
I vigorously avoid discussing CO2 effects on climate, just as I avoid discussing Velikovsky.Tiompan wrote: Everyone is affected by the climate they live in , this applies to the builders of the GT and KT as much as you .
Undoubtedly this impact event led to "sky magic" practices in that area,Tiompan wrote: Why did you mention the Kennet paper in a thread about GT if you didn't see a connection ?
It is after all , yet another of Collins et al fantasies to make that connection .