Gobekli tepi, Comet Impact, and the Younger Dryas

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

Re: Gobekli tepi, Comet Impact, and the Younger Dryas

Postby Minimalist » Thu May 25, 2017 3:50 pm

Um, I was.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin
Minimalist
 
Posts: 15435
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Gobekli tepi, Comet Impact, and the Younger Dryas

Postby circumspice » Thu May 25, 2017 11:33 pm

Ditto
"Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer, and, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer." ~ Alexander Pope
User avatar
circumspice
 
Posts: 623
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:10 pm

Re: Gobekli tepi, Comet Impact, and the Younger Dryas

Postby Tiompan » Fri May 26, 2017 2:00 am

[quote="shawomet"
I just assumed.... ya'll were talking about the hypothetical impact at the start of the Younger Dryas.[/quote]
There was also the all important inclusion of the first component of the thread ,i.e. GT, and how it has become the latest in a long line of
of ancient sites that have been used by the alt. crowd to "explain " some fantasy .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Gobekli tepi, Comet Impact, and the Younger Dryas

Postby shawomet » Fri May 26, 2017 9:38 am

Minimalist wrote:Um, I was.


But the onset of the Younger Dryas does not denote the beginning of the Holocene. The fluted point technologies that emerged Post-Clovis developed in the Late Paleolithic, when it was still Pleistocene. So now I am more confused then ever. The Holocene is denoted by the beginning of the Early Archaic Era in North America, circa 11,700 years ago. The Younger Dryas occurred during the Pleistocene, not the Holocene. Of course, I should have remembered that in the first place, obviously, but the impact hypothesised to have been noted by Gobekli tepe was the one occurring at the onset of the Younger Dryas...
shawomet
 
Posts: 318
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:14 am

Re: Gobekli tepi, Comet Impact, and the Younger Dryas

Postby shawomet » Fri May 26, 2017 9:48 am

circumspice wrote:Ditto


OK, got you. I understand what yourself and Minimalist are saying. But, again, the onset of the Younger Dryas is not the onset of the Holocene. The Younger Dryas happened at the end of the Pleistocene Era, not the beginning of the Holocene Era. If I had my thinking cap on straight in the first place, I would have realized that before myself confusing onset of Younger Dryas and Holocene start. Sorry 'bout that.
shawomet
 
Posts: 318
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:14 am

Re: Gobekli tepi, Comet Impact, and the Younger Dryas

Postby Tiompan » Fri May 26, 2017 10:05 am

shawomet wrote:
The Younger Dryas occurred during the Pleistocene, not the Holocene. Of course, I should have remembered that in the first place, obviously, but the impact hypothesised to have been noted by Gobekli tepe was the one occurring at the onset of the Younger Dryas...


But as the 2nd post in this thread had pointed out ." 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 .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Gobekli tepi, Comet Impact, and the Younger Dryas

Postby shawomet » Fri May 26, 2017 10:06 am

And actually, if we say that Clovis technology disappears at the onset of the Younger Dryas, the many fluted point forms that appeared Post Clovis(and can easily be confused with Clovis points, but the knapping technology is different. Still, how could those fluted forms have not been passed down by people who were descendent from the people who used Clovis fluted points?), developed in what would be Middle Paleo in North America. Clovis, and the non fluted forms of the Western Stemmed tradition in the Great Basin are probably contemporaneous, and regarded as Early Paleo in North America. Those are the temporal terms used in North American prehistory. The Late Paleo in North America was characterized by unfluted Lanceolate forms, such as Agate Basin points, etc. Although some Dalton points, with the Dalton horizon straddling the Late Paleo/Early Archaic, i.e. straddling Pleistocene/Holocene, were fluted.
shawomet
 
Posts: 318
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:14 am

Re: Gobekli tepi, Comet Impact, and the Younger Dryas

Postby shawomet » Fri May 26, 2017 10:07 am

Tiompan wrote:
shawomet wrote:
The Younger Dryas occurred during the Pleistocene, not the Holocene. Of course, I should have remembered that in the first place, obviously, but the impact hypothesised to have been noted by Gobekli tepe was the one occurring at the onset of the Younger Dryas...


But as the 2nd post in this thread had pointed out ." 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 .


Sure, I'm sure I'm guilty of not paying close enough attention, and I started the thread.
shawomet
 
Posts: 318
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:14 am

Re: Gobekli tepi, Comet Impact, and the Younger Dryas

Postby Tiompan » Fri May 26, 2017 10:12 am

[quote="shawomet"

Sure, I'm sure I'm guilty of not paying close enough attention, and I started the thread.[/quote]

As I said earlier ,not your fault that the Edinburgh team had produced another pile of rubbish, up there with Collins and Hancock and their fellow fantasists .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Gobekli tepi, Comet Impact, and the Younger Dryas

Postby shawomet » Fri May 26, 2017 10:25 am

Here is a handy conversion chart....
Attachments
Time chart.jpg
Time chart.jpg (23.91 KiB) Viewed 528 times
shawomet
 
Posts: 318
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:14 am

Re: Gobekli tepi, Comet Impact, and the Younger Dryas

Postby Tiompan » Fri May 26, 2017 10:32 am

shawomet wrote:Here is a handy conversion chart....


Is it too much to expect the fantasists to pay attention to/understand that , or is it just convenient rather than ignorance ?
I'm betting ignorance/various cognitive biases all the way .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Gobekli tepi, Comet Impact, and the Younger Dryas

Postby E.P. Grondine » Mon May 29, 2017 9:33 am

Tiompan wrote:EP ,
I am not"smearing " your work by association .
As I keep telling you, when you make an error I quote it then show where you went wrong.
Here is a an obvious example:

E.P. Grondine wrote:If you bothers to notice, the alignments were to Comet Giacobini Zimmer.


You thought you knew about comets but if we look at that short sentence, it’s garbage .
1) you get the name wrong ,it’s Zinner not Zimmer.
2) The putative alignments are to the North , and that is not where the comet can be observed .
3) The comet was only discovered in 1900 and cannot be seen with the naked eye, so not only was the “alignment “in the wrong direction it wouldn’t have been seen .
4) You don’t get “alignments “ to comets in prehistoric buildings .
5) You confused a comet with meteors , the Draconids are spawned from the comet but are seen in the north not the south.

That is an example of data refuting a genuine quote , something you attempt to do but fail to provide the data or the quote .


1) "m" is next to "n" on the keyboard., and I am typing these with one hand for the most part.

2,3,4,5)

Your own ignorance of cometary evolution is appalling, tiompan.
Why the hell do you think that Giacobini Zinner looked the same way it does now as it did some 13,000 years ago?
I am not confusing comets with meteors.
What the alignments may have been, and to what, is the issue under discussion and analysis.

Fletcher and I managed to get together for about 30 minutes this last weekend.
He is reluctant to work on Gobekli Tepe,
because site maps aligned to magnetic north are useless.
For that matter, due to the Earth's wobble,
site maps aligned to the current celestial north will be useless later on.

Now do you want to make yourself useful, tiompan,
or do you just want to bloviate?

The issue now at hand is the rate of cometary injection into the inner solar system,
not whether there were cometary impacts at the start of the Holocene,
or whether they led to bizarre magical practices.
Why you think the ancient Europeans were more rational than ancient Native Americans is beyond me.
Do you think Native American sites are somehow less important than European ones?
Usually people believe what they want to believe until reality intrudes.
User avatar
E.P. Grondine
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Gobekli tepi, Comet Impact, and the Younger Dryas

Postby E.P. Grondine » Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:09 am

Tiompan -

Fletcher took a brief look at a Gobekli Tepe site map and the plaques.

Based on that brief look, and our understanding of Native American astronomies, general background skills, etc.
We believe that the impactor involved in the Holocene Start Impact Events,
and thus the comet active at the time of the construction of Gobekli Tepe,
was Comet Giacobini Zinner.

Thus mankind has been threatened by two comets in the recent past, Comet Giacobini Zinner and Comet Encke.
Based on this sample of one from Earth, Jupiter observations, and other data,
we believe the threat posed by the cometary impact hazard is far far far greater
than NASA's recent operational estimates.

Factoring out precession and nutation,
and gravitational perturbation,
the central pillars of the structures likely aligned to Comet Giacobini Zinner, as shown by the stone plaque.
The various shifts in its orbit over time likely led to the burials and reconstructions of the structures.
Fletcher wants me to emphasize to you that occupation of the site that has been exposed so far was likely over 2,000 years.

This is all a first glance,
but it is our current working estimate.

Real detailed work would require a site visit,
which Fletcher and myself could undertake providing our full expenses were covered in advance,
i.. air fare, ground transportation, food, and lodging,
along with a healthy per diem.

We currently have plenty to do right here.

( I need to add here that I personally would rather be troweling through tsunami deposits on Crete,
although working someplace in Mixteca or on their hieroglyphic system is beginning to appeal.
There are other major North American sites as well which I can't mention publicly.)
Usually people believe what they want to believe until reality intrudes.
User avatar
E.P. Grondine
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Gobekli tepi, Comet Impact, and the Younger Dryas

Postby Tiompan » Mon Jun 12, 2017 4:38 am

You have evaded the point of the post . Read it again . It was in relation to how I point out your errors, not simply say you are getting something wrong and not highlighting it . That is what you do and done so again .If I have said something wrong provide the quote then point out where it is in error .
Here is the example again , a short sentence with multiple errors . Plenty more where they come from .

E.P. Grondine wrote:”If you bothers to notice, the alignments were to Comet Giacobini Zimmer. “
You thought you knew about comets but if we look at that short sentence, it’s garbage .
1) you get the name wrong ,it’s Zinner not Zimmer.
2) The putative alignments are to the North , and that is not where the comet can be observed .
3) The comet was only discovered in 1900 and cannot be seen with the naked eye, so not only was the “alignment “in the wrong direction it wouldn’t have been seen .
4) You don’t get “alignments “ to comets in prehistoric buildings .
5) You confused a comet with meteors , the Draconids are spawned from the comet but are seen in the north not the south.
Only one of your excuses holds any water , maybe it was a typo but didn't you notice the spelling of a proper name ?are your initials RO ? Is it a vomet ? or was it really a typo ?
The evasion of the real content of the errors is a joke . Look at errors 2, and 3 which have nothing to do with how the Comet may have looked like in the past , what ever it may looked like you were looking in the wrong direction . An earlier post had went into more detail about errors “where you get it demonstrably wrong is that you thought that the Comet was observed in the North ,probably because it spawned the meteors but the comet is observed in the south not the north . This fundamental error is exacerbated by the belief that there are astronomical alignments at GT and or KT and their indication is to north , two highly contentious points . The quote where you make that particular fundamental error is “ the alignments were to Comet Giacobini Zimmer. “
Again for the umpteenth time , if I make a mistake provide the quote and highlight the error ,just as I do for you .
If you need any more examples of where you done this there are plenty more forthcoming .
Spend a bit more time looking at the astronomy at GT before mouthing off nonsense , and if you spot any errors in what I have said in relation to the astronomy in relation to the site do highlight them complete with the quote . Breath will not be held .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Gobekli tepi, Comet Impact, and the Younger Dryas

Postby E.P. Grondine » Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:09 am

From earlier in our discussion:

Image

For comparative purposes:

Image

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

NOTE C especially:

Image

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:
Image

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.
I responded to your points 1-6 earlier, and you can read those responses earlier in this thread.
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 our terms for work on further detailed site archaeo-astronomcal analysis.
Usually people believe what they want to believe until reality intrudes.
User avatar
E.P. Grondine
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:36 am

PreviousNext

Return to Old World

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron