PPN notes

The Old World is a reference to those parts of Earth known to Europeans before the voyages of Christopher Columbus; it includes Europe, Asia and Africa.

Moderators: Minimalist, MichelleH

PPN notes

Postby E.P. Grondine » Wed Jul 29, 2015 10:21 am

A nicely illustrated internet site by a local guide:

http://www.kultureltatil.com/yazarlar/c ... itepe.html
Last edited by E.P. Grondine on Sun Aug 02, 2015 1:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
E.P. Grondine
 

Re: Nice Gobekli Tepe analysis

Postby Tiompan » Wed Jul 29, 2015 10:48 am

E.P. Grondine wrote:http://www.kultureltatil.com/yazarlar/celal/gobeklitepe.html



With , thankfully , no mention of Collins .Although worryingly there is a mention of "The “Hanging Gardens” of Göbekli Tepe," by Constantinos Ragazas which
is even more hilarious than even you could manage ,and highly recommended for the laugh .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Nice Gobekli Tepe analysis

Postby E.P. Grondine » Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:38 am

A "discussion" among archaeologists of Gobekli Tepe use, including whether it was roofed or not.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1086 ... nfirm=true


Marc Verhoeven sums it up nicely:

"We are all eager to solve the mysteries of Gobekli Tepe, but apparently it is still too early to define the functions and meanings of the level III and II buildings. There is a need for more horizontal exposures, more floors (now reached in level III buildings C and D), chemical residue analyses, micro-stratigraphy, and so on. It has to be acknowledged, however, that traces of primary use were probably disturbed or removed because of abandonment practices (such as intentional filling).

"Yet in a sense it does not matter whether we call the buildings at Gobekli Tepe temples or houses. What really matters is that there are monumental and visually powerful (canonical) symbolic structures at a very early date. For the people at Gobekli Tepe, a distinction between houses and temples may have been meaningless.

"It seems that first and foremost they inhabited a world in which animals played a central symbolic role. The spaces with iconography pertaining to “dangerous” animals seem to represent deliberate attempts to express both relations and distinctions between nature and culture. The animals on the anthropomorphic T-shaped pillars, for instance, are themselves but are also part of humans or humanoids. Some of the sculptures even seem to crawl out of the pillars and walls, which thus can be seen as liminal elements “betwixt and between” different worlds.

"Perhaps the most important lesson is that oppositions provide general frames of reference for being in the world. However, for archeologists and prehistoric communities alike, these are not enough to deal with the dynamics and complexities of social life."

In other words, their apparat for working with advanced hunter-gatherers has collapsed.

They (and ourselves) do not know if the symbols on the pillars are astronomical constellations, clan symbols, "magic" symbols of feared animals, or all three.

The concept of pasture management leading to domestication is unknown to them.

The concepts of arbor management of fruit and nut trees are unknown to them.

The exact timings of the general climatic changes in the area are unknown to them.

How far the society was stratified, and if there were permanent caretakers, is unknown.

Annual use timings are unknown.

The timing of the rebuilds is not known.

Perhaps they were re-built following each leaders' death.

Why these people made stone circles, and what they were used for, is unknown.

Some of the PPNA/PPNB problems, including a chronology summary:
http://tortenelemszak.uni-miskolc.hu/Ha ... a_2010.pdf
Last edited by E.P. Grondine on Sun Aug 02, 2015 1:58 pm, edited 8 times in total.
E.P. Grondine
 

Re: Nice Gobekli Tepe analysis

Postby Tiompan » Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:44 am

E.P. Grondine wrote:http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1086/661207.pdf?acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true



I can hear the howls of laughter from Ted now ,when asked to would consider the "alignments " to Cygnus /Deneb / Draconids etc .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Nice Gobekli Tepe analysis

Postby E.P. Grondine » Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:48 am

Tiompan wrote:
E.P. Grondine wrote:http://www.kultureltatil.com/yazarlar/celal/gobeklitepe.html


With , thankfully , no mention of Collins .Although worryingly there is a mention of "The “Hanging Gardens” of Göbekli Tepe," by Constantinos Ragazas which
is even more hilarious than even you could manage ,and highly recommended for the laugh .


George, I don't have to read Collins for a good laugh, I can read Lepper or Shiels.

I am seeing everyone trying to claim GT as an ancestral site, Chinese, India Indians, etc.

It looks to me like there might be a competition to get excavation rights for KT.
It would be a wonder if the Oriental Institute has not put in a bid.
Last edited by E.P. Grondine on Sun Aug 02, 2015 1:31 pm, edited 5 times in total.
E.P. Grondine
 

Re: Nice Gobekli Tepe analysis

Postby Tiompan » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:16 pm

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 ?) .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Nice Gobekli Tepe analysis

Postby E.P. Grondine » Thu Jul 30, 2015 9:21 am

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 ?) .


Its nice to be discussing the data instead of Collins' understanding of it.

Are there any phytolith studies of the ancient environment at KT and GT?

Glancing through the materials quickly, I see polished stone tools in abundance, but no serrated edges yet.
(I "own" one of the earliest polished stone tools from Morocco, brought on the last legal plane out.)

But this is simply a first glance, and I'll have to check the tools kits in depth.

My guesses as to what occurred are as follows.

There was a maritime society which felled large trees and used them to make dugouts capable of sailing the Mediterranean with ease.

If the wheat domestication in Canaan holds up, they had coastal settlements farther south.
(I "own" a nice microlith made from Libyan Desert Glass, brought from the last legal plane out.)

I suspect that wheat may have been first "domesticated" in animal feeding pastures, much the same way maize made it north to Mexico.

Now as that society spreads, the large trees disappear, for several reasons, and the technologies for using them are transferred to using stone to replace them in construction.
(The quarries are very significant sites in themselves.)

IF the structures at GT and KT are cult buildings, and not "henges", then these large stone working technologies appear to have spread throughout the Mediterranean, and then been adopted by other peoples to build THEIR OWN structures.

IF the structures at GT and KT are cult buildings, and not "henges", then these peoples astronomical structures are likely to be found nearby. (If one knows what they are looking for. Otherwise they will await accidental discovery.)

That still leaves the symbols on the artifacts to be analyzed.
Last edited by E.P. Grondine on Sun Aug 02, 2015 1:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
E.P. Grondine
 

Re: Nice Gobekli Tepe analysis

Postby Tiompan » Thu Jul 30, 2015 9:41 am

You made this same mistake years ago , look up "henge" , it is not what you think .
There are no henges in Anatolia and GT is certainly not one

Astronomy may have been part of the culture but there is no reason to believe so from the architecture , finds or engravings or even anything like the putative "alignments"
Tiompan
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Nice Gobekli Tepe analysis

Postby E.P. Grondine » Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:46 am

Hi George -

For one impact event and its effect on the palaeo climate at the nearby site of ABU HUREYA ON THE EUPHRATES RIVER see:

https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer ... f&hl=en_US

Except for the age model and data table below, the following information was extracted from Bunch et al. (17) and Wittke et al. (19). See main manuscript and Tables S1-S2 for other site information.

"This is an excavated archaeological site (“tell”) located on a terrace near the Euphrates River on well-developed, limey, silty, unconsolidated sand, atop massive limestone deposits (66).
Several 12,800-year-old pit-houses at Abu Hureyra and their immediate environs were associated witha dark, 3-cm-thick, charcoal-rich layer (centered at 420 cmbs (centimeters below surface) or 284.6 masl (meters above sea level), indicating a major burning episode.

"The original excavators previously attributed this layer to residue from cooking fires (66), but now attribute it to biomass burning at the time of the YDB impact event (17).

"The proxy-rich YDB layer contained abundance peaks in charcoal, nanodianonds, carbon spherules, impact-related spherules (595/kg) and melt-glass (15.8 g/kg; the highest of any YDB site investigated)(17, 19, 20, 67).

"The palynological and macrobotanical record demonstrates that the YDB layer coincides with major climatic change, interpreted to represent the onset of the Younger Dryas episode
(66, 68).

"At that time, the regional environment of Abu Hureyra abruptly changed from moist woodland-steppes to arid, mostly treeless steppes. This change is reflected in the sudden decline in abundance of charred seed remains of several major food groups.

[LARGE TREES DISAPPEAR, AND GRASSSLANDS EMERGE.]

"First, there was a decline by ≈50% in seeds of food plants, such as wild pears and cherries, found in an oak-dominated park-woodland that disappeared from the Abu Hureyra area at the Younger Dryas onset.

Second, there was a decline of ≈70% in seeds of some legumes.

Third, there was a decline of ≈60% in grains of wild ryes and wheat (68).

Altogether, changes in more than 150 species of plants reflect the major effects of this abrupt climatic change from warmer, moister conditions, equivalent to the Allerød oscillation in Europe,
to cooler, dryer conditions at the onset of the Younger Dryas at ≈12,800 years ago.

This climatic change coincides with deposition of impact-related proxies in the YDB layer at Abu Hureyra."

Now here is how one makes a well reasoned criticism:
http://archaeobotanist.blogspot.com/201 ... an-or.html
Note the clear differences between this gentleman's behavior and that of DOLTS.
Last edited by E.P. Grondine on Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:02 pm, edited 6 times in total.
E.P. Grondine
 

Re: Nice Gobekli Tepe analysis

Postby E.P. Grondine » Thu Jul 30, 2015 5:26 pm

George, I have more serious problems to deal with than your own personal definition of "henge".

If you note in the piece above, this team keeps referring to the "Younger Dryas", which used to be set in the 8,000's BCE, and is related to the drainage of the glacial lakes in North America.

Do you believe in kicking the teeth of attacking dogs, or kicking in the teeth of their owners?
Last edited by E.P. Grondine on Sat Aug 01, 2015 8:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
E.P. Grondine
 

Re: Nice Gobekli Tepe analysis

Postby Tiompan » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:02 am

[quote="E.P. Grondine"] I have more serious problems to deal with than your own personal definition of "henge". {quote}

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 .
I also have more serious problems to deal with than correcting your errors .

Good paper . What has it to do with GT ?
"Bayesian chronological modeling was applied to 354 dates from 23 stratigraphic sections in 12 countries on four continents to establish
a modeled YDB age range for this event of 12,835–12,735 Cal B.P. at 95% probability. "
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 .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Nice Gobekli Tepe analysis

Postby E.P. Grondine » Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:07 am

I have more serious problems to deal with than your own personal definition of "henge".

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.


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:I also have more serious problems to deal with than correcting your errors .


Good, Then get to your points quickly, and stop hinting around.

Again, the term "Younger Dryas" used to be used to describe phenomenon associated with the drainage of the glacial lakes of North America.

Tiompan wrote:Good paper . What has it to do with GT ?


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.

"Bayesian chronological modeling was applied to 354 dates from 23 stratigraphic sections in 12 countries on four continents to establish a modeled YDB age range for this event of 12,835–12,735 Cal B.P. at 95% probability."

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.


(It is always a pain in the butt to convert from calibrated radio carbon dates to the absolute calendric dates used in astronomy.)

Since you're putting words into my mouth, George, do you really think the global rises in sea levels, and there were several. and the flooding of the Black Sea were unrelated?

Also, why you think that the nearby climatic conditions would have no effect on the peoples at GT and KT?
Last edited by E.P. Grondine on Sun Aug 02, 2015 12:08 pm, edited 4 times in total.
E.P. Grondine
 

Re: Nice Gobekli Tepe analysis

Postby Tiompan » Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:04 am

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 knwew 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 .

It may be a pain to calibrate dates ,but again it is critical , otherwise we get the rubbish spouted by the fantasists associating the YDih with the building of GT when they differ by three millenia .
Everyone is affected by the climate they live in , this applies to the builders of the GT and KT as much as you .
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 .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Nice Gobekli Tepe analysis

Postby E.P. Grondine » Sat Aug 01, 2015 9:52 am

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 .


Be sure to drop a note to the folks working at Cahokia.

Tiompan wrote:It may be a pain to calibrate dates, but again it is critical ,


Yes, very critical

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 .


If you think the confusion over the Younger Dryas definition is bad, you ought to see what is happening with "asteroid" and "comet":

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... moths.html

In this case most of the confusion can be set at the feet of Dr. Morrison, a key figure in the sceptical movement,
who simply can not accept any impact hazard estimates other than his own,
and who will use any means, fair or foul,
to support them.

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 .


I vigorously avoid discussing CO2 effects on climate, just as I avoid discussing Velikovsky.

That said, I am really angry about NASA's failure to continue the TOMS dataset in an easy to see form.

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 .


Undoubtedly this impact event led to "sky magic" practices in that area,
as it did in the Americas.

In closing today's exchange, let me point out to you yet once again that the ancient sky was quite different than the sky we see today.
We know this with certainty because of the results of modern cometary astronomy.
E.P. Grondine
 

Re: Nice Gobekli Tepe analysis

Postby E.P. Grondine » Sat Aug 01, 2015 10:14 am

Image

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_Abu_Hureyra

better: Mureybet -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mureybet

better yet: Jerf el-Ahmar, Syria -

CHICKPEA DOMESTICATION:
http://archaeology.about.com/od/jterms/ ... -Ahmar.htm

"The wild version of chickpeas (Cicer reticulatum) is only found in parts of what is today southeastern Turkey and adjacent Syria, and it is likely that it was first domesticated there, about 11,000 years ago. Chickpeas were part of the culture that first developed farming on our planet, called the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period."

"In addition, the domesticated form of chickpea contains nearly twice the tryptophan of the wild form, an amino acid that has been connected with higher brain serotonin concentrations and higher birth rates and accelerated growth in humans and animals."

"ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES:

Domesticated chickpeas have been found at several early archaeological sites, including the Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites of Tell el-Kerkh (ca. 8,000 BC) and Dja'de (11,000-10,300 calendar years ago cal BP, or about 9,000 BC) in Syria, Cayönü (7250-6750 BC), Hacilar (ca 6700 BC), and Akarçay Tepe (7280-8700 BP) in Turkey; and Jericho (8350 BC to 7370 BC) in the West Bank.
Spread of domesticates:
https://plus.google.com/109956219428630965829/posts

LOSS OF LARGE TREES

Jerf el-Ahmar
http://www.cnrs.fr/Cnrspresse/en370a4.htm

Aerial view of Jerf el-Ahmar
Image

Especially NOTE THE POST BASES:

Image

Another example of the use of stone to replace large timbers:
Image

Another site,Tell Qarassa, south of the GT concentration:
http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/ibanez325/
polished stone tone tools, but still no serrrated edges, and nothing of a maritime tool kit

The spread of microliths to Europe, but no serrated edges:
http://archeorient.hypotheses.org/3788
Last edited by E.P. Grondine on Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:06 pm, edited 32 times in total.
E.P. Grondine
 

Next

Return to Old World

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron