Gobekli tepi, Comet Impact, and the Younger Dryas

[shawomet]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017 ... bc-wiping/

http://maajournal.com/Issues/2017/Vol17 ... 281%29.pdf

ABSTRACT

We have interpreted much of the symbolism of Göbekli Tepe in terms of astronomical events. By matching low-relief carvings on some of the pillars at Göbekli Tepe to star asterisms we find compelling evidence that the famous ‘Vulture Stone’ is a date stamp for 10950 BC ± 250 yrs, which corresponds closely to the proposed Younger Dryas event, estimated at 10890 BC. We also find evidence that a key function of Göbekli Tepe was to observe meteor showers and record cometary encounters. Indeed, the people of Göbekli Tepe appear to have had a special interest in the Taurid meteor stream, the same meteor stream that is proposed as responsible for the Younger-Dryas event. Is Göbekli Tepe the ‘smoking gun’ for the Younger-Dryas cometary encounter, and hence for coherent catastrophism?

[Tiompan]

There is so much wrong with that “paper” it would take some time to go through all the factual and logical errors , cherry picking and over interpretation are rife .
The most basic point though is that the initial premise that the animals and birds represent asterisms simply doesn't stand up . e.g. “We suggest the vulture/eagle on pillar 43 can be interpreted as the ‘teapot’ asterism of our present -day notion of Sagittarius; the angle between the eagle/vulture’s head and wings ,
in particular,agrees well with the ‘handle’, ‘lid’ and ‘spout’ of the teapot asterism. “
Here is the “teapot “ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittari ... tellation)
Does it look anything like a bird never mind a vulture . ?
But it's worse than that . The image of the summer solstice asterisms is at 16:34 , quite some time for the sun to go down and not a time when asterisms are visible . The reason that image is used rather than one of what is actually visible is that the all important “teapot “ is below the horizon by the time the stars are visible at that time , place and date .

We expect nonsense in relation to Stonehenge and Gobekli particularly when astronomy is involved , this is up there with the funniest . “the little headless man at the bottom; it is indicating probably the worst day ever in human history since the end of the ice age; the hypothetical YD catastrophe.”
It might help if they had a closer look at the dates for the YD and the monument and also the impact of the YD in the area .
“Pillar 43 is a date stamp corresponding to 10,950 BC ± 250 years.”
Which is a millenia earlier than the earliest date found at the site and which they mention ;
“(Enclosure D) corresponds to an incredible 11,530 BP ± 220 years (Dietrich & Schmidt, 2010) “ but the original reference is conveniently in cal BC and less confusing i.e.”Calibrated Radiocarbon Age using OxCal 4.1 (Datensatz IntCal09); two Sigma Range : 9675 (93,9%) 9314 calBC .

Just noticed this corker “The summer solstice is determined by finding the date when the sun has the highest latitude. “ That is gobbledygook .Is it really necessary to point out that the sun does not “have “ a latitude ?

[circumspice]

The Telegraph article lost all credibility when it mentioned Graham Hancock & his book. Also, the use of all the superlatives & absolutes in the article smacked of yellow journalism.

[Tiompan]

The Telegraph article lost all credibility when it mentioned Graham Hancock & his book. Also, the use of all the superlatives & absolutes in the article smacked of yellow journalism.

Ultimately it is the supposedly academic paper that is being commented upon that matters .That is the source of the rubbish and all that I quoted from .
The authors never mention Hancock , but they do Collins , albeit ,slightly dismissively .
I realise that the authors are not writing in an area that fits their discipline , engineering , but that is no excuse .
What is astonishing is how it has been picked up by the press in general , with an entirely uncritical approach .

[kbs2244]

"I realise that the authors are not writing in an area that fits their discipline , engineering , but that is no excuse ."

Sometimes it takes an "outsider" to prove, or dis-prove, the accepted dogma.

[Tiompan]

"I realise that the authors are not writing in an area that fits their discipline , engineering , but that is no excuse ."

Sometimes it takes an "outsider" to prove, or dis-prove, the accepted dogma.

The points where they have got it wrong are not a matter of dogma .

A cursory look at the paper was enough to find obvious errors .

This a not an error but a
“moreover it is possible the artist(s) of Pillar 43 did not intend to depict an accurate star-map of the sky – rather their intention was perhaps to provide a symbolic
representation of the order and approximate placement of the constellations as they saw it, sufficient to enable interpretation of pillar 43. “
So not only do we have extremely contentious symbolism in relation to the constellations but now it is accepted that the placement of the contentious symbols is also contentious .
Is there anything left ,apart from the errors ?

[E.P. Grondine]

1f9hwg1wionh254zdu2abfkg.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/Sweatman-and-Tsikritsis-gobekli-tepe-comet.pdf

Hi George -

The problem that you have is the fast neutrons produced in larger hyper-velocity impacts,
and the resultant 14 C, which throw off dates, by causing them to show up too young,
They are really tough to calibrate out, as they depending on distance from impact, circulation,
impactor and impacte surface composition , and other variables

See my little video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbM4vHcRyz0&t=130s

[E.P. Grondine]

Hi spice, all -

Well, it looks like Hancock is receiving all the publicity
But then he has greater recognition than Andrew Collins,
whose work George and I discussed (and that is "discussed", not "cussed")
here last year.

On the other hand, Hancock keeps looking for one "master race",
and the only one of those I know of lies recently buried in Germany.
But at least Hancock is not promoting the experimentation with psycho-active substances,
and has found himself an honest line of work.

But it is going to be tough to give anyone other than yours truly
credit for noticing the production of fast neutrons in large hyper-velocity impacts.
Nor for the discovery that there were TWO Holocene Start Impact Events.

But then the Holocene Start Impact Events are so yesterday, and last year.
See my current worknotes over at New World, george. -

[E.P. Grondine]

From our previous discussion:



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:

[Tiompan]

Hi EP ,
Any possible problems with calibrating dates has no impact (pun intended ) on the the nonsense in the paper .
The hypothesis is based on a fantasy , i.e. the various animals and birds represent asterisms.
The fantasy then takes on another dimension by cherry picking the representations and suggesting they are in an order that fits in a date with the YD .
Not only does the cherry picking omit obvious components ,it doesn't work .
What is seen on the the suggested date ,time and place is another fantasy i.e. asterisms are not visible on summer afternoons .
When they do become visible the ones the important ones are below the horizon .
Fantasy to the power of 3 +errors = hilarious rubbish .

[E.P. Grondine]

Hi EP ,
Any possible problems with calibrating dates has no impact (pun intended ) on the the nonsense in the paper .
The hypothesis is based on a fantasy , i.e. the various animals and birds represent asterisms.
The fantasy then takes on another dimension by cherry picking the representations and suggesting they are in an order that fits in a date with the YD .
Not only does the cherry picking omit obvious components ,it doesn't work .
What is seen on the the suggested date ,time and place is another fantasy i.e. asterisms are not visible on summer afternoons .
When they do become visible the ones the important ones are below the horizon .
Fantasy to the power of 3 +errors = hilarious rubbish .

Hi Tiompan -

I'm pretty sure that both of the Holocene Start Impact Events will show up in the phytolith sequence at Gobekli Tepe,
due to the climate changes they caused,

And since my observation that fast neutrons and thus carbon 14 were produced in large hyper-velocity impacts,
what we're faced with is nothing less than another "radio-carbon revolution".
[Think of it in terms of Roetgen and x-rays.]

Based on parallels from the Americas, the double sided plaques may have served as "admission tickets" to the different PPN B ceremonial sites.

Based on the local myths about the height of the people,
they may have been X mt DNA from the Black Sea.
If both micro-liths and finely serated edges suddenly showed up
from out of "nowhere"...

Perhaps coprolites from the site may provided information on this.
Since Gobekli Tepe was a feasting site, they should be there somewhere.

Now for some reason the local people invested a lot of effort in the structures,
and they were fundamental to their belief systems.
In other words, they had some "magical" purpose.

We also have the implements for brewing, and they may have added some pretty exotic "flavorings"
to their brew.

I myself constantly have to deal with nutzbarkheiter who use modern Euopean constellations
to "analyze" ancient structures in the Americas,
and have to repeatedly explain to them that
the Native American peoples' constellations were very different,
as well as nation specific in their details.

So for Gobekli Tepe, you do have to "move" the night sky
back to its appearance at the time it was built,
and look for celestial alignments.

But any constellations that you use
should reflect those of the people who built them,
and they were probably not modern European constellations.
Unfortunately, since the advent of carbon 14 dating,
the number of professional scholars working on the most ancient written astronomical accounts
from the ancient near east
has fallen to maybe 20 people world wide.

Now although the paths of both asteroids and comets are subject to gravitational perturbations over time,
their locations are more stable than those of the constellations.
So for the purposes at hand, factor out the shifts in the Earth's orbits and wobbles,
in other words the shifts in the appearance of the ancient night skies...

By the way, if you have any "friends" who are very familiar with meso-america societies,
please send the over to the "New World" section here.

[Tiompan]

[quote="E.P. Grondine"

I'm pretty sure that both of the Holocene Start Impact Events will show up in the phytolith sequence at Gobekli Tepe,
due to the climate changes they caused, [/quote]
I'm pretty sure that both of the Holocene Start Impact Events will show up in the phytolith sequence at Gobekli Tepe,
due to the climate changes they caused,
There are problems with that belief . There are a great number of engravings from the region and period , whilst interpreters can fantasise as much as they like about the content , climate change is a long way down the list of what would be acceptable from anyone who versed in the subject . A collection of animals and birds as subject matter is not the stuff of climate change imagery , it is however what we see among other engravings throughout the world post YD that are obviously not attempting to depict climate change As always “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 .”
Further all the evidence points to Gobekli being built after the YD .
As for the impact of the YD at the time and place
See .https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2014AM/final ... 247985.htm

Btw , it goes without saying that any proper archaeoastronomical assessment of the night sky from any period takes into account the changes in the appearance of the night sky and many other factors besides .
e.g. a very basic example ; one thing they did get right in the paper was the date for the summer solstice in the period , note how it differs from that of a contemporary solstice ,or that for when Stonehenge was built etc .i.e. what matters is the declination of the sun .

[E.P. Grondine]

I'm pretty sure that both of the Holocene Start Impact Events will show up in the phytolith sequence at Gobekli Tepe,
due to the climate changes they caused,

There are problems with that belief.

A poor choice of words on my part. I EXPECT (and not "believe") that two changes in the phytolith series at Gobekli Tepe
will show up, based upon the climate changes caused by the TWO separate Holocene Start Impact Events.

There are a great number of engravings from the region and period , whilst interpreters can fantasize as much as they like about the content, climate change is a long way down the list of what would be acceptable from anyone who versed in the subject .

Yes, we are viewing a very complex symbol set - my guess is that it may have actually turned into a full writing system, but we'll see.

A collection of animals and birds as subject matter is not the stuff of climate change imagery, it is however what we see among other engravings throughout the world post YD that are obviously not attempting to depict climate change As always “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 .

Yes, it is a question of interpretation, or of understanding.
The back of plaque C above looks to me like a meteor storm from a large comet,
in the context of its front, and what had been occurring in the ancient skies near those times.

Further all the evidence points to Gobekli being built after the YD .
As for the impact of the YD at the time and place
See .https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2014AM/final ... 247985.htm

I am certain that the excavators and their laboratories are doing the best job that they can.
Now please watch my little video on the peopling of the Americas,
and the production of fast neutrons and 14C in large hyper-velocity impacts.

BTW , it goes without saying that any proper archaeoastronomical assessment of the night sky from any period
takes into account the changes in the appearance of the night sky and many other factors besides .

e.g. a very basic example:
one thing they did get right in the paper was the date for the summer solstice in the period.
Note how it differs from that of a contemporary solstice ,or that for when Stonehenge was built etc .
i.e. what matters is the declination of the sun .

tiompan, I rely upon my colleague Fletcher Wilson, one of Ohio's leading naked eye astronomers,
for all things ancient astronomical and Native American.
We discuss these things amongst ourselves, and then present our conclusions.

I would "feel" more confidence in this paper
if it's authors had of shown
more knowledge of ancient near eastern constellation systems.
But since the radiocarbon revolution, that is getting to be a lost art.

[E.P. Grondine]

Here is the excavation teams' comment:

https://tepetelegrams.wordpress.com/201 ... e-aurochs/

"1. There still is quite a significant probability that the older circular enclosures of Göbekli Tepe’s Layer III actually were subterranean buildings – possibly even covered by roof constructions. This then somehow would limit their usability as actual observatories a bit.

"2. Even if we assume that the night sky 12,000 years ago looked exactly like today’s, the question at hand would be whether a prehistoric hunter really would have put together the very same asterisms and constellations we recognise today (most of them going back to ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, and Greek scholars and descriptions)?

"3. Contrary to the article’s premise the unearthed features at Göbekli Tepe are not shrouded in mystery. Published over the last years and decades, there is ample scientific literature available which unfortunately did not find its way into the study. The specific animals depicted in each enclosure’s iconography for instance seems to follow a certain intention, emphasizing different species in different enclosures. A purely substitutional interpretation ignores these more subtle but significant details. This also can be demonstrated for instance with the headless man on the shaft of Pillar 43, interpreted as symbol of death and mass extinction in the paper – however silently omitting the emphasised phallus in the same depiction which somehow contradicts the lifeless notion and implies a much more complex narrative behind these reliefs. There are even more reliefs on both narrow sides of P[illar] 43 which went conpletely uncommented [t]here.

"4. It also seems a bit arbitrary to base this interpretation (and all its consequences as described in the paper) on what seems to be some randomly selected pillars and their iconography (the interpretation thus not covering “much of the symbolism of Göbekli Tepe” as stated in the paper, but merely the tip of that iceberg). In the meantime more than 60 monumental T-pillars could have been unearthed in the older Layer III – many of these showing similar reliefs of animals and abstract symbols, a few even as complex as Pillar 43 (like Pillar 56 or Pillar 66 in enclosure H, for example). And it does not end there: the same iconography is prominently known also from other find groups like stone vessels, shaft straighteners, and plaquettes – not only from Göbekli Tepe, but a variety of contemporary sites in the wider vicinity.

"So, with all due respect for the work and effort the Edinburgh colleagues obviously put into their research and this publication, there still are – at least from our perspective as excavators of this important site – some points worth a more thorough discussion. Contact to and exchange with the excavation team could have easily clarified many of these points."

Those are pretty much my sentiments.

The questions are:
1) why so much effort would be made into carving symbols that would soon be buried and not visible,
2) why the structures were repeatedly built and buried in short periods of time,
3) the symbols as viewed from their total usage at the time.

I admire very much the excavation teams' invitation to the Edinborough group to contact them -
perhaps that will lead to some really skilled archaeo-astronomers, of which there is a real shortage now.

[E.P. Grondine]

Here is a nice sane note on dealing with the impact hazard:

http://www.geekwire.com/2017/what-to-do-asteroid/

What is minimally needed for smaller impactors is enough warning time to get people into blast shelters,
and to safe nuclear electric and other plants in operation.

What in minimally needed for largwr impactors is about 3 days warning,
enough time to relocate populations for a few days.

What is minimally needed for larger impactor is an early a warning as is possible,
so that deflection or destruction techniques may be applied ax appropriate.

With this in mind,
perhaps the structures at Gobekli Tepe served as blast shelters
as one of their roles.