The HENGES of North America (was something about X mt DNA)

The Western Hemisphere. General term for the Americas following their discovery by Europeans, thus setting them in contradistinction to the Old World of Africa, Europe, and Asia.

Moderators: Minimalist, MichelleH

Re: X mt DNA in North America

Postby E.P. Grondine » Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:15 am

http://onlineathens.com/local-news-jack ... n-intrigue

Image

Image

Image

Image

The fellow who does this work is Creek and that may have influenced his views,
so it will require a field check to see what is actually there.

Note that he takes "Coosa" and turns it into "Kushita":
Image
Last edited by E.P. Grondine on Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Usually people believe what they want to believe until reality intrudes.
User avatar
E.P. Grondine
 
Posts: 2148
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:36 am

Re: X mt DNA in North America

Postby E.P. Grondine » Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:39 am

Tiompan wrote:The henges of North America , will be a very short book . You might imagine if there were any , someone might have a written it already .
It may however appeal to the alt nut crowd who are not very discerning when it comes to terminology , veracity or evidence .


The tile will be The HENGES and Medicine Wheels of North America", with HENGES in big type.

There may have been previous attempts at books, but the task is to do a better one
to make it both true and entertaining.

By the way tiompan, the alt nut crowd are theosophists:
http://www.danieljglenn.com/the_podcast ... rt%201.pdf

tiopan, d you give the folks working on woodhenge sites in the UK as much crap as you give me?
If so, then perhaps we'll all get together for some tea some day.
Usually people believe what they want to believe until reality intrudes.
User avatar
E.P. Grondine
 
Posts: 2148
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:36 am

Re: X mt DNA in North America

Postby Tiompan » Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:59 am

Highlighting your mistakes is an old trick .
Jazzers are for ever doing , if you repeat what was originally an unintended bum note ,by drawing attention to it the listener assumes that it was all intentional .
Not quite the same in vanity publishing .

The alt nut crowd are more than just Theosophists .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: X mt DNA in North America

Postby Tiompan » Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:11 pm

[

There is no shortage of crap spouted about monuments in the UK just as in the US .
There is only one Woodhenge in the UK and some crap spouted about that site too , but nothing compared to your output .

As well as the more obvious error about Henges , what hasn't struck you yet , is that the term Henge was coined post (no pun) the naming of Stonehenge and Woodhenge .
Wittry may have gotten a bit mixed up about the terminology , as well as the astronomy , but those that followed only copied woodhenge , bad enough , but they tended to avoid Henge .
Of course any young US archaeologist who knew what they are talking about wouldn't use the term to refer to a timber circle or some putative astronomically aligned site ,or both .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: X mt DNA in North America

Postby E.P. Grondine » Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:47 pm

Any US archaeologgist who does not use the word "HENGE" when talking or writing about a henge site
will have the word "Henge" provided to him by his audience or editor.
Usually people believe what they want to believe until reality intrudes.
User avatar
E.P. Grondine
 
Posts: 2148
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:36 am

Re: X mt DNA in North America

Postby Tiompan » Thu Feb 01, 2018 1:26 pm

E.P. Grondine wrote:Any US archaeologgist who does not use the word "HENGE" when talking or writing about a henge site
will have the word "Henge" provided to him by his audience or editor.


The above is a perfect example of the confusion sown by not using the correct terminology .
I know that your definition of henge is wrong and therefore I can see what you are attempting to say ,
but anyone who knows their stuff and expects others to use the correct terminology would be confused .
I doubt that US archaeologists are as stupid as you you make out .
I have heard plenty of US archaeos discussing henges and they get the terminology right .
There is no doubt that the general public and non archaeos like yourself will get it wrong . Some even learn from being shown the error of their ways .

Where is the evidence to support this claim ?
Can you provide an example where a US archaeologist uses the term Henge correctly but his editor or an an audience tells him to desist and use the term with the meaning as you would assume it to be ?
I doubt it . Did Wittry ever use Henge in relation to a US monument , as opposed to his misconceived woodhenge ?
If he did he would be doubly mistaken but it would be interesting to see if that is the source of your error .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: X mt DNA in North America

Postby E.P. Grondine » Thu Feb 01, 2018 4:52 pm

While I have had thew misfortune of meeting some really "stupid" (grossly incompetent) archaeologists here in the US over the years,
I have not met one yet who does not at least try to clearly communicate to the public in words they can understand.

So far the word "woodhenge" is used by them.
It looks to me like you are dropping your objections to the use of that word.
Good.

It is true that I am not a professionally trained archaeologist.
The last time I excavated was the Mayor's backyard in Fredericksburg, Virginia.

But my work does not require excavation,
but rather reading through linear feet of excavation reports.
As a result, I grade archaeologists, and like Santa Claus, I know who's been naughty and who's been nice.
When I screw up in this, their colleagues usually set me straight and give me all the details.

But I am very good in locating sites, and in surface surveys.
(Although, my legs and eyes are going.)

Also, when at a site I have no problem finding my way around it
and understanding things other people have missed.
That requires stripping away the debris of ages in my mind,
picturing the original landscape and environment,
and entering into the original builders' mindset (weltshaung spelling?).

To respond to the original question, "Was Gobekli Tepe a henge?"
my own answer is I do not know. At least not yet.
I have a pretty high threshold for evidence.

All I can work from are the images shown is the two plaques
which I shared with you earlier.
That and the excavation reports.
Usually people believe what they want to believe until reality intrudes.
User avatar
E.P. Grondine
 
Posts: 2148
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:36 am

Re: X mt DNA in North America

Postby Tiompan » Fri Feb 02, 2018 2:11 am

The reason that the US archaeos can communicate is due to using the correct terminology .
That is why they now put quotes around "woodhenge" and don't use the the term Henge with the anything like your made up definitions .
You have enough difficulty processing basic info when it is presented in it's most basic form , e.g. simple refutations of your henge definition .
It is unlikely that you will be able to follow the slightly more complex problem re. "woodhenge " and how it has nothing to do with your naive wood +henge .
But here it is again Stonehenge is an old name for the monument ,the henge component was not a type of monument .
Woodhenge was named after Stonehenge , but before the henge component was given it's modern meaning .
So the henge in woodhenge is not the same as henge as we know it today .
Wittry was probably unaware of this when he came up with his misnomer .Maybe he learned , later US archaeos certainly did .You never do .

Who was the idiot who asked "Was Gobekli Tepe a henge?".
Obviously it is not a henge . There are no known henges in Anatolia or the US for that matter .
It is the excavation that shows that GT is not a henge , the two plaques from elsewhere couldn't possibly prove anything about GT .
Have you ever seen anyone who knows the subject describe any of the sites at GT as a henge ? Bear in mind , nutcases , like who ever asked the original question , don't count .

"Entering the original builders mindset " Lol , funny how it's always the charlatans that believe they can do that .
Again , any results are literally , pure fantasy .

It looks like we have yet another addition to the fantasy list .
"Any US archaeologgist who does not use the word "HENGE" when talking or writing about a henge site
will have the word "Henge" provided to him by his audience or editor."
You seemed not to have provided any evidence to support this claim ?
Tiompan
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: X mt DNA in North America

Postby Simon21 » Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:03 am

Tiompan wrote:The reason that the US archaeos can communicate is due to using the correct terminology .
That is why they now put quotes around "woodhenge" and don't use the the term Henge with the anything like your made up definitions .
You have enough difficulty processing basic info when it is presented in it's most basic form , e.g. simple refutations of your henge definition .
It is unlikely that you will be able to follow the slightly more complex problem re. "woodhenge " and how it has nothing to do with your naive wood +henge .
But here it is again Stonehenge is an old name for the monument ,the henge component was not a type of monument .
Woodhenge was named after Stonehenge , but before the henge component was given it's modern meaning .
So the henge in woodhenge is not the same as henge as we know it today .
Wittry was probably unaware of this when he came up with his misnomer .Maybe he learned , later US archaeos certainly did .You never do .

Who was the idiot who asked "Was Gobekli Tepe a henge?".
Obviously it is not a henge . There are no known henges in Anatolia or the US for that matter .
It is the excavation that shows that GT is not a henge , the two plaques from elsewhere couldn't possibly prove anything about GT .
Have you ever seen anyone who knows the subject describe any of the sites at GT as a henge ? Bear in mind , nutcases , like who ever asked the original question , don't count .

"Entering the original builders mindset " Lol , funny how it's always the charlatans that believe they can do that .
Again , any results are literally , pure fantasy .

It looks like we have yet another addition to the fantasy list .
"Any US archaeologgist who does not use the word "HENGE" when talking or writing about a henge site
will have the word "Henge" provided to him by his audience or editor."
You seemed not to have provided any evidence to support this claim ?




This is harshly expressed but true, there are no henges in NA or Turkey
Simon21
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:40 am

Re: X mt DNA in North America

Postby Tiompan » Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:41 am

This is harshly expressed but true, there are no henges in NA or Turkey[/quote]

Nearly 8 years the same info was imparted , very politely and patiently , only to be met with ignorant , in both senses of the word ,impolite responses .
Considering that the refutations were multiple and repeated at frequent intervals to other impolite and errorful responses it hardly surprising that it wasn't harsher .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: X mt DNA in North America

Postby E.P. Grondine » Fri Feb 02, 2018 9:10 am

Tiompan, I have provided you with multiple examples of the words "henge" and "woodhenge" being used in exactly what you argue is the "incorrect" sense.

I used the word "henge" in its popular sense "Man and Impact in the Americas",
and tiompan has given me exactly zero reasons not to use the word "henge" that way again in the next edition,
with the sole exception than "that was the way the word "henge" was used earlier".

In all of this, tiompan has not provided any one word solution
to the problem of referring to stone or wooden posts set up in a circular astronomical alignment.

tiompan is correct that no one can enter the mind of anyone else.
Given that, it would be better to say that in some narrow cases
I can understand the builders' thinking far better than most people.
(I can not remember the German word for this. :? : Weltschaung?)
At least those walking the fields or sites with me find this to be so.

This discussion started with Andre Collins' hypothesis that Gobekli Tepe was a henge.
Now not only does Andrew Collins understand that impacts took place at the start of the Holocene,
even Graham Hancock does. Based on what tiompan has written, tiompan does not.
tiompan avoids directly answering this question with a stream of abuse.
But then based on audience sizes,
what tiompan thinks does not matter too much,
except to a limited audience,
which clearly includes myself, for better or worse.

In closing this typing exercise and adrenalin elevating sparing for this morning,
this daily exchange of knowledge and abuse,
I want to note that tiompan has not examined how old henge technology is,
nor where it came from.
This failure arises from tiompan's very narrow regional view of henges.

I myself do not know if the technology did not arise in very early western hominid populations,
particularly in North Africa, where it appears the very ancient Yuchi and Ocanachee populations were,
before their migration to South America, and then on to North America bringing Clovis with them.

Of course the very idea that henge technologies may have spread along the Atlantic Coast
undoubtedly offends many peoples' racist sensitivities.
It is yet another dangerous idea.

I will also note that at least Collins' thinking is capable of evolving, in the same way that language does.
Hell. even Hancock has cut down on his drug use.
Last edited by E.P. Grondine on Fri Feb 02, 2018 9:53 am, edited 3 times in total.
Usually people believe what they want to believe until reality intrudes.
User avatar
E.P. Grondine
 
Posts: 2148
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:36 am

Re: X mt DNA in North America

Postby Tiompan » Fri Feb 02, 2018 9:42 am

"you have given me exactly zero reasons not to use the word "henge" that way again in the next edition,
wit the sole exception than that was the way the word "henge" was used earlier. "

You can say what like in your vanity publishings ,who is going to bother ? ,I certainly don't . I am only concerened with pointing out your error .
The multiple definition of Henge you have been given for years is the contemporary one . Again you have failed to provide any evidence to support your definition , in fact you admit to having made it up .

"In all of this, tou have not provided any one word solution to the problem of referring to stone or wooden posts set up in a circular astronomical alignment. "
Why should there be a word one "solution " , you have been told how any knowledgeable archaeo or archaeoastronomer would describe such a monument .


"I can understand the builders' thinking far better than most people. At least those walking the fields or sites with me find that to be so."
You obviously have had a humour bypass . You really don't see the how hilarious that is do you ?

"This discussion started with Andre Collins' hypothesis that Gobekli Tepe was a henge."
Collins writes crap , and I wouldn't put it past him to get the terminology wrong , but I would like see where he actually describes GT as a Henge , can you provide the evidence to support that ?

What I think doesn't matter at all . It's the facts that count .Same goes for you but what you write as facts are regularly wrong , I merely highlight them .
There is no exchange of knowledge , it is all one way . Due to your inability to use the correct terminology your " henge technology " comments are gobbledygook .

Still waiting to find out "Who was the idiot who asked "Was Gobekli Tepe a henge?". or is this yet another evasion ?
and “Did Wittry ever use Henge in relation to a US monument , as opposed to his misconceived woodhenge ?
Tiompan
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: X mt DNA in North America

Postby E.P. Grondine » Fri Feb 02, 2018 3:00 pm

The obvious solution to this difficulty is to provide the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary with examples of the use of
the word "Henge" as it is commonly used today.

Sometimes a single word does well. Such as "Yes", "No", or "Perhaps".

Was Gobekli Tepe a Henge?

Arguing about the definition of henge is one way of avoiding the question a to whether there was any astronomical alignment of the megaliths found there.

Now if you want to get irritated over the use of language,
you would be amazed how many otherwise respectable "archaeologists" speak and write about "The Moundbuilders",
leading many people to believe an entirely imaginary people existed.
Usually people believe what they want to believe until reality intrudes.
User avatar
E.P. Grondine
 
Posts: 2148
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:36 am

Re: X mt DNA in North America

Postby Tiompan » Fri Feb 02, 2018 3:39 pm

I think the Oxford English Dictionary knows what it is doing . It is very unlikely to accept the use of made up definitions particularly self confessed ones .

Yep looks like ""This discussion started with Andre Collins' hypothesis that Gobekli Tepe was a henge." is another addition to the collection of fantasies that you can't provide any evidence for .
You just made that one up too .
Looks like that comment was an attempt to to evade the problem of answering "Who was the idiot who asked "Was Gobekli Tepe a henge?"and put the blame on Collins .

There has been no evasion on my behalf about putative astronomical alignments at GT or KT .As a search of the discussion here will prove . I am only too happy to repeat your errors concerning them too .

I don't get irritated over the use of language or the fact that people use the wrong terminology . But I do point out your errors ,something entirely different.
Tiompan
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: X mt DNA in North America

Postby E.P. Grondine » Fri Feb 02, 2018 5:09 pm

Tiompan wrote:I think the Oxford English Dictionary knows what it is doing . It is very unlikely to accept the use of made up definitions particularly self confessed ones .

OEDy usually do accept evidence of a neologism, and have a regular review process to do this.
As I pointed out to you, the word "henge" was in long use before I ever started to write my book on Native American history.

Yep looks like ""This discussion started with Andre Collins' hypothesis that Gobekli Tepe was a henge." is another addition to the collection of fantasies that you can't provide any evidence for .
You just made that one up too .
Looks like that comment was an attempt to to evade the problem of answering "Who was the idiot who asked "Was Gobekli Tepe a henge?"and put the blame on Collins .

Tiompan wrote:There has been no evasion on my behalf about putative astronomical alignments at GT or KT.
As a search of the discussion here will prove.
I am only too happy to repeat your errors concerning them too .

My errors are pretty limited:


Tiompan wrote: I don't get irritated over the use of language or the fact that people use the wrong terminology .


Oh really? you've been going on about the definition of "henge" for quite a while.
Usually people believe what they want to believe until reality intrudes.
User avatar
E.P. Grondine
 
Posts: 2148
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:36 am

PreviousNext

Return to New World

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron