Archaeologica.org

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017 ... c-gobekli/

A fore runner of PPN-B?

At last, something about GT that is not nuts (the adj) .

And here is the full research paper itself:

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/ ... 00564.full

To myself, this is just one piece of evidence demonstrating what's been obvious to me from the start of these Gobekli Tepe discussions, namely, that we are only at the very beginning stages of understanding this site.

In the now closed Gobekli Tepe thread, I asked what I felt was a perfectly reasonable question that was completely ignored. One of the respondents in that earlier thread claimed the monument was aligned to Comet Giacobni-Zinner. That respondent stated that just because the brightness magnitude of Giacobini-Zinner today fell outside what could be seen with the naked eye, does not mean it was not visible at the time of the construction of GT. I understand that Comet brightness can be variable. In 1946, the Comet had a brightness magnitude of 5, briefly, which meant it could just be seen with the naked eye.

But, left unanswered is how do we know that the brightness at the time of GT's construction was bright enough to be seen? It seemed like the respondent who felt it was, and the monument was so aligned, simply assumed it was. I never did learn how we know this has to have been the case. I don't really want to resurrect that now closed discussion here, but a brief description of how we can know with certainty that the Comet was clearly much brighter at the time of GT's construction would not hurt.

At any rate, I did feel the astronomical alignment interpretation was premature, given how very little can actually be known at this early date in the research being done at Gobekli Tepe. And best of luck to all serious researchers working at the site, since at present it is awfully close to the forces of ISIS.

[quote="shawomet"
how do we know that the brightness at the time of GT's construction was bright enough to be seen? [/quote]

Simply, we don't know for sure , but that was not the only problem with a suggestion about a putative alignment towards a comet .
The others are 1) The comet was moving and covered a large section of the horizon
2) The “alignments” consisted of two pillars , a common feature in many monuments but two pillars alone do not make an alignment .
3) Even if you accept that two pillars make an alignment , how is to be perceived , throught the pillars ? , if so where do you stand ? Behind them , in between them , looking across them ? Whichever it maybe there is no accuracy
e.g. the need for an indication like a back sicksight the pre-requisite of an astro alignment is missing .
4)The pillars are roughly 5m apart and the furthest you can get from within the enclosures is about 7m which means
there is a still a very wide visual gap , not the stuff of alignments .
5) There are various pairs of pillars at GT and all face different parts of the horizon .
6) The pairs are all in the north side of their various enclosures and if anything the assumption
is that they would be facing north , which is problematic enough for sightings as it looking uphill , but the comet is seen in the south .
7) There are no precedents for alignments to comets in prehistoric monuments .

In general ,when confronted with monuments with multiple components , pillars at GT , megaliths at Stonehenge etc there is enough
material to work with to find an "alignment " to anything you want whether a heavenly object or event or related to a date like a solstice or your Uncle's birthday .

Hello tiompan -

From earlier in our discussion:




For comparative purposes:




ESPECIALLY NOT THE HOLED STONE'S LOCATION AT GOBLEKI TEPE.

NOTE PLAQUE C here 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 of C may represent a meteor storm, the Draconids.

It appears there is disagreement on which ends are up:



That said, the twin pillars had significance for the builders of Gobekli Tepe:




good morning. Tiompan.

While you yourself may have an intense interest in PPN-B. we (Fletcher and myself) don't.
I thank you for your earlier help with guidance to links to PPN-B materials.

Typing is quite difficult now. but please do not mistake my abruptness for rudeness.
Also please do not mistake your ability to out-type me for any concession of points in analysis.

As far as Andrew Collins' analysis goes
Fletcher tells me that Cygnus was the Thunderbird constellation for many Native American peoples.
Bill Romain stresses the importance of Cygnus in his works on Ohio Hopewell archeo-astronomy

I have serious doubts about these identifications
and suspect that different asterisms were involved
My own role in this work here is limited to identifying successor peoples
and then finding reliable written recordings of traditions from these successor peoples for analysis.

As far as the absolute timing of the remains at Gobekli Tepe
The platinum group spike should show up in cores taken at the site
and if those cores also contain carbon 14 materials
they could provide a nice key for absolute carbon 14 calibration curve for remains found at the site proper.

Fletcher and I agree that far more excavation work needs to be done at Gobekli Tepe in the quarry area.
hell as even I could not fuck up a couple of squares there it should provide a great student training area.

You already have Fletcher and my own terms for work on further detailed site archaeo-astronomcal analysis.

As far as sites in Turkey go, I am far more interested in Lycia,
and the question as to whether poems recited at the ancient Sarpadoneia games
were the source for the later oral cycles about the Trojan War.

E.P. Grondine

For both of you,
comet disintegration has been studied for many years now.
I do not have time to teach you the topic.

Operationally, thanks to Duncan Steel's work on the records of Rio Caraca and Rupunini,
we know that 30 meter cometissemals prduce 15 kilton aribursts.
It appears that cohesions of 2 or 3 of these produce 15 megation airbursts.
Those pieces are as dark as charcoal.

PS - "In general ,when confronted with monuments with multiple components , pillars at GT , megaliths at Stonehenge etc there is enough
material to work with to find an "alignment " to anything you want whether a heavenly object or event or related to a date like a solstice or your Uncle's birthday."

Yes. We will hve to wait for more plaques to how up in the region,
or evidence from elsewher on the Earth from other cultures.

The government of Turkey's tourism department is fortunate,
as Gobkli Tepe had joined the Pyramids and Stonehenge as one of the world's most intriguing sites.

EP ,
I can quite happily refute the contents of your tic all day long , but it is very annoying for me and more so for others .

What "looks to me " or "may represent" is neither here nor there , particularly from someone with no knowledge of rock art in general , or more to the point from the area , it's simply over interpretative fantasy .
The plaques have typical motifs found all over the globe and are not from GT, they came from 115 km to the south . GT has plenty of imagery why not over interpret that .

You have failed to show that the comet was ever visible to the naked eye at any period . And also failed to respond to the entire problem about the putative "alignments" .
Further your comment “Collins has been trying to find a reason for Gobleki Tepe's alignment to celestial north.
The reason for that is straight forward:that is where Comet Giacobini Zimmer approached the Earth from: “
Shows how little you actually know about the comet ,even if you could see it , it would not be in the north , it would actually have been seen in the south .

As a response to my comment "In general ,when confronted with monuments with multiple components , pillars at GT , megaliths at Stonehenge etc there is enough
material to work with to find an "alignment " to anything you want whether a heavenly object or event or related to a date like a solstice or your Uncle's birthday."
Your reply

E.P. Grondine wrote: Yes. We will hve to wait for more plaques to how up in the region,
or evidence from elsewher on the Earth from other cultures.

. Is a non sequitur
Along with the Stonehenge and the pyramids, GT is now the new crap generator for fringe know nothing over interpreters and fantasists .

An easy to watch introduction to the impact hazard will be shown tomorrow:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0

Dear Captain Oblivious-

You may be fascinated by GT, but have you ever considered that some of us might not be?
Have you ever considered the hard data from the Americas on
the Holocene Start Impact Events?

"Magical" thinking usually has an internal logic all its own,
at this point in time there is simply not enough evidence to make too many firm statements about that practiced at GT.
It appears that the invention of alcohol played a role in the feasting at GT.

We do not know the role of the defleshing at GT,
and whether or not it was related to excarnation.

Both Andrew Collinis and Graham Hancock run their own sites,
so if you won't go to the cosmictusk,
you could always go to those sites.
There's no point in me having all of the fun.

By the way, Denial is not simply a river in Egypt.

E.P. Grondine wrote:
You may be fascinated by GT, but have you ever considered that some of us might not be? .

A few posts ago you were saying " Gobkli Tepe had joined the Pyramids and Stonehenge as one of the world's most intriguing sites."
Make your mind up .

You are the one who is constantly re-posting the same nonsense about the site .
The only reason I mention it is to highlight the errors contained in these posts , i.e. quoting you .

If you can't provide data to refute any points I have made , or evade the refutations of your own points why do you continue to post content free waffle ?

E.P. Grondine wrote:at this point in time there is simply not enough evidence to make too many firm statements about that practiced at GT.

That doesn't stop you and others making easily refuted comments about supposed "alignments" to comets that were in the opposite direction to what you suggested,
or fantasies about abstract markings on plaques from a site 115km distant from GT whilst ignoring the huge amount of representational engravings at the site .

It is clear to all where the denial lies and who is oblivious to the evidence .

Dear Capain Oblivious -

I suppose I'll have to be clearer.

Gobekli Tepe has joined Stonehenge and the Pyramids in the public interest.

I have told you multiple times that I myself am more interested in other sites.

The German team is doing a wonderful job with the GT site,
and I await further finds and publications from them.
The only need is the cores for carbon 14 dating refinement,
and to give the phytolith sequence for the region,
and I have little doubt that those will be done soon.

You have demanded that I defend Collins' and Hancock's works.
I enjoy Collins' work, it would be very interesting to speak with Carlson, Hancock's geologist.
The current finds line up well with Collins' observations of a later excarnation cult in the area.

But I am not making any money off of their works.

Now if you persist, I may take all of the data from these exchanges with you and turn them into an epub or POD.
I suppose I'll have to include a short lengthy piece on what is currently known about cometary evolution,
and apply it to Comet Giacobini Zinner.

Fletcher and myself could work on GT and its engravings, but only on the terms stated.
We have plenty of work to do right here.

Yes, it is very clear who is in a state of denial.

by the way, the Thom's hypothesis about the henges is now established doctrine.

Hi shawomet -

With all of the shit slung by a certain chimp, I missed your perfectly reasonable quesstion.

The chances of Comet Giacobini Zinner appearing the same way 15,000 years ago as it does today are zero,

These two image may explain this for you.

Comet Shoemaker Levey 9:



Comet Schwassman Wachmann 3:

EP ,
The reason why it is clear that you are in denial is that you continually evade the problems that have been presented .
Everything else is either waffle or non-sequiturs.

"You have demanded that I defend Collins' and Hancock's works."
As ever , you just made that up ,as ever provide a quote ,as ever no breath held .

"by the way, the Thom's hypothesis about the henges is now established doctrine"
You just made that up too .
It's yet another example of something that was pointed out to you years ago and as usual it failed to sink in .
You are confused as usual . Henges are not what you imagine ,do I really have to repeat the definition yet again .
Thom worked mostly with megalithic monuments i.e. stone circles , stone rows etc , henges , not being megalithic were rarely part of his work .
Henges are sometimes associated with megaliths but only a very small percentage .
Not only did Thom not have an hypothesis about henges , whatever you are fantasising about is not established doctrine either .
Thom was a excellent surveyor and engineer but wildly over interpreted his "findings" .
Why didn't you provide a quote or link to anything reputable /falsifiable that actually supports that nonsensical comment?

Yet again a simple comment can contain multiple errors .

E.P. Grondine wrote:Hi shawomet -

With all of the shit slung by a certain chimp, I missed your perfectly reasonable quesstion.

The chances of Comet Giacobini Zinner appearing the same way 15,000 years ago as it does today are zero,

These two image may explain this for you.

Comet Shoemaker Levey 9:



Comet Schwassman Wachmann 3:

I'm not aware of any respondents to this thread who are chimps. But, more to the point. Granted that Comet Giacobini Zinner did not look the same 15,000 years ago, that does not answer my question as to how we know how bright it was at the time of GT's construction. The images may be intended to explain this to me, but they don't unfortunately. Do you know what the magnitude was, of that Comet, at the time of GT's construction? I assume, from your answer, that you have good reason for believing it has to have been much brighter in the distant past. I simply wondered if that is something that is an irrefutable fact, and if, in fact, an excellent estimate can be given, or is in fact known, as to what it's magnitude was, going back through time. In other words, since it is not generally visible to the naked eye in our own day and age, how can we know with certainty that it was not only far brighter in magnitude in the past, but sufficiently impressive to have had something as dedicated as GT built as a result of its appearance? If this is simply too complicated to explain, that's fine. But that's what I was asking. Telling me that there is zero chance it looked the same 15,000 years ago as it does today does not really tell me what its magnitude was 15,000 years ago, or if it was in fact, for instance, an absolutely spectacular sight in the nighttime sky. Granted, this may be too complex to explain to a non expert in the science of comet studies, but it's just that I would rather not simply assume it was far brighter and far more impressive. I just naturally wondered if that was somehow an irrefutable fact, and are there any references that would explain that to me. You're just presenting it as an assumption to be accepted uncritically it seems. But again, if it means I have to go back to school, OK, I get it. Over my head....