Dear Andis & LexiLine group,
   At the time of your 2006 Newsletter (below), we were all working on final
permissions to re-release David Rohl's 'Pharaohs & Kings'. You mention the book,
below.
   I know this post seems 'commercial' but somehow I have to let people know
about it, and these are the type groups where some folks may be interested. (If
not just delete.)
   People have been asking us for 2 years now when this would be released. The
DVDs have been out for a few months but there were only a few to begin with- and
they are now almost gone.
   (Also, if you order one of these DVDs, there is a special 3rd DVD
available- just write to me and ask me about it!)
   You can order both 'Pharaohs & Kings' and the David Rohl seminar which we shot
in Florida ('Myth or Reality') here:
   http://stretchproductions.com/RohlProducts.html
   David Rohl video SAMPLES in the center of the page:
http://www.youtube.com/StretchProductions
    Thanks!
-Cami McCraw
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newchronology/


--- In LexiLine@yahoogroups.com, "Andis Kaulins" <AKaulins@...> wrote:
>
> 20 LexiLine Newsletter 2006 The Tomb of Moses
>
> Dear LexiLiners,
>
> Although not recognized as such by the Egyptologists, the Tomb of Moses
> was discovered by the team of Austrian archaeologist Manfred Bietak in
> the ancient Israelite city of Avaris (Tell el Dab'a)
> <http://www.egyptsites.co.uk/lower/delta/eastern/daba.html>  , which is
> found stratigraphically under the later Per Ramses, home of the Hebrews
> (Pi-Ramesse, which is the ancient land of Gath or Goshen, today called
> Giza).
>
> Because of collosal errors in mainsteam  chronology, this tomb is
> erroneously regarded by some scholars to be the tomb of Biblical
> Joseph, which is amusing, as the error in chronology is merely about 500
> years.  In Avaris they found an extensive palace with an equally
> extensive garden in which they discovered a tomb which had been
> completely emptied in ancient days, which is a rarity, since
> graverobbers usually just take valuables, but leave the bodies
> untouched. Here the bodies had also been been removed.
>
> What is unusual is that this particular graverobbery is documented in
> ancient Pharaonic records.  This tomb at Avaris is none other than  a
> tomb mentioned at the time of widespread grave plunderings during the
> reign of Ramses   IX, a reign which marked the last death knells of
> Pharaonic civilization, when not even the ancient graves of kings were
> safe. It is in our opinion the tomb of Moses.
>
> The   robbing of the Tomb of Moses has come down to us in a papyrus
> which protocols the trial of certain "Amun-pnufer", who on the   22nd
> day of the winter month and in the 16th year of reign of Ramses IX
> confessed to robbing the grave of the king known   erroneously to the
> Egyptologists as "Sobekemsaf II" and his wife "Nubchas". As written at
> gizapyramids.org
> <http://www.gizapyramids.org/pdf%20library/bmfa_pdfs/jmfa02_1990_18to29.\
> pdf%20>  :
>
> "[T]]he 'Leopold-Amherst Papyrus' records the testimony of the thieves
> who plundered the tomb of King Sekhemre Shedtawy   Sobekem-saf II and
> Queen Nubkhas of the Seventeenth Dynasty.... The thieves confessed that
> they had broken into this tomb   and had: 'found the noble mummy of the
> sacred king... [and] numerous golden amulets and ornaments were on his
> breast and a golden   mask was over his face. The noble mummy of the
> king was entirely bedecked with gold and his coffins were embellished
> with gold   and silver, both inside and out, and inlaid with precious
> stones. We collected the gold, together with the amulets and jewels that
> were about him and the metal that was on his coffins. We found the queen
> in the same state and retrieved all that we found   upon her. Then we
> set fire to their coffins. We took the furnishings that were found with
> them, comprising objects of gold, silver   and bronze, and divided the
> spoils amongst us.' " [emphasis added]
>
> Compare the royal pectoral  found in the above cited article
> <http://www.gizapyramids.org/pdf%20library/bmfa_pdfs/jmfa02_1990_18to29.\
> pdf%20>   by Peter Lacovara, "An Ancient Egyptian Royal Pectoral" in the
> Journal of Fine Arts, Boston, Vol. 2, 1990, (dated to c. 1784-1570 B.C.)
> to the one found in the Tomb of Tuthankhamun. They are virtually
> identical.
>
> As I have explained at the LexiLine website
> <http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi300.htm>  , Moses was the Pharaoh
> today transcribed by the Egyptologists as Sobek-emsaf II (also written
> Sebekemsaf).  The statue of this king, which is the  "Statue" of Moses -
> in black diorite - is in the Museum of Art History in Vienna but the
> base and feet are in the National Museum of Ireland in Dublin.
>
> It is the statue of a man whose hieroglyphic name is transcribed -
> erroneously - by Egyptologists as Sobek-em-s-af, whereas the hieroglyphs
> "em-s" actually clearly read MOSHE (Moses).
> This is the same as Sechemre Schedtaui - also erroneously transcribed ,
> the 1st King of Thebes of the 17th Dynasty, a reign dated by current
> chronology to ca. 1650-1600 B.C.
>
> MOSES and the tale of ARTAPANUS
> (See David Rohl's book, A Test of Time, Random House, London, 1995)
>
> MOSES WAS BORN - writes Artapanus - in the reign of Chaneferre
> (Khenephres), known as Sobekhotep IV, who, even by current chronology,
> ruled ca. 1700 B.C. The current date assigned to the life of Moses by
> mainstream scholarship is supported by nothing, no evidence whatsover,
> and is typical for the kind of sloppy scholarship in this field which is
> rampant at the universities of the world.
>
> Clemens' Stromata summarizes the writings of Artapanus, a Jewish
> historian who wrote Peri Iodaion (About the Jews).
> Artapanus is named by Eusebius in his Evangelicae Preparationis and his
> detailed account of the life of Moses is reported in his Pamphilis, Book
> 9, Ch. 27, 1-37.
>
> That life story of MOSES agrees with the Egyptian "SINUHE Story" - which
> originated in the Pharaonic 12th Dynasty (!) at the time of A-MEN-EM-HET
> III, who we have identified as the Pharaoh of Exodus.
>
> The story of Sinuhe is about a young man who flees Egypt (as does
> Moses), goes to Palestine (as does Moses), where Sinuhe finds the
> support of Prince Retenju just as Moses finds the help of the similarly
> named "Raguel" in Artapanus, and the help of of "Reguel" viz. "Jitro" in
> the Biblical Exodus (2,18; 3,1;4,18; 18,1). The stories are the same and
> date to ca. 1700 BC.
>
> The Pharaoh who first "enslaved" the Hebrews, says Artapanus, was called
> PAL-MEN-O-THES and had a city and temple built
> at "Kessan" (as Rohl correctly notes, "Kes" in the eastern Delta) called
> "Kessan" in the Septuagint and "Goshen" in the Masora,
> which is generally equated with On, Heliopolis or Egyptian Iunu.
>
> The statue of Moses (Sebekemsaf) was found at Armant, (Ar-Mant is
> related to Iunu-Month) which was greatly developed in the 12th dynasty.
>
> Pharaoh PAL-MEN-O-THIS is surely the same as A-MEN-E(M)-HET(is) III out
> of that very same 12th dynasty. The first syllable has simply been
> mistranscribed by Egyptologists or Greeks.
>
> It was during the 12th dynasty that territorial expansion against Kush
> and Nubia reached its peak, and the story of Moses tells us that he also
> campaigned against Nubia and Ethiopia in his youth.
>
> In the chapters 71 to 78 of the apocryphal  Book of Jasher
> <http://www.ccel.org/a/anonymous/jasher/home.html>  , which gives a
> detailed account of the life of Moses, we find the mention of several
> pharaohs. Their equivalence (our discovery) to hieroglyphically
> documented personages is as follows:
>
> - King of Africa (Egypt, Thebes) ANGEAS = the king today transcribed by
> Egyptologists as ANTEF
> - King of Africa (Egypt, Thebes) AZDRUBAL (son of Angeas) = the king
> today transcribed by Egyptologists as MENTUHOTEP
> As far as we can tell, there was only one ANTEF and one MENTUHOTEP, with
> the varied cartouched hieroglpyhs (no cartouches for the three known
> name variants of Mentuhotep) referring to the birth, ascension and death
> of each pharaoh. That is why the Antefs have only one tomb location - at
> Dira Abu 'n-Naga - and why only the tomb of Mentuhotep I has been found,
> because there are were no other kings named Menuhotep, only this one.
> - King of Africa (Egypt, Thebes) ANIBAL (son of Angeas) = the king today
> transcribed by Egyptologists as AMENEMHET I.
> It was Amenemhet who first called the Delta Region "Itj-taui". The
> Egyptologists think that the word applies to a specific place there,
> which they have thus far been unable to find, whereas, of course, it
> applies to the entire region.
>
> The Pharaoh of Exodus was Amenemhet III  (transcribed Pal-men-othis
> according to Artapanus, i.e. rather than A-men-othis) during whose reign
> two pyramids of mud brick were built, and these are the last pyramids
> ever built in Egypt, because the Hebrews left and sojourned to
> Per-Ramses.
>
> Please note that "Africa" or "Egypt" in those days applied to THEBES but
> NOT to the Nile Delta region, which was called Judah (Itj-taui) ,
> Sut/Shut, Gath or Goshen, whence its name today, Giza.
>
> We have written <http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi18.htm>  as
> follows about the chronology of Moses as related to other events, e.g.
> the Solar Eclipse of April 16, 1699 BC during the reign of Sobekhotep IV
> Chaneferre:
>
> "[This was a] Solar Eclipse at the Pleiades and the crossing of the
> ecliptic and the celestial equator underneath the gate to Heaven between
> Auriga and Perseus. The heiroglyphs mark this as a partial sun followed
> by the swallowing windpipe symbol. According to Artapanus (writing about
> 300 BC), Chaneferre - i.e. the Pharaoh just noted above - was the
> Pharaoh during whose reign Moses was born. No contrary evidence gives us
> cause to doubt this historical record. Since Chaneferre apparently ruled
> only about 10 years, this puts the birth of Moses between maximally 10
> years either side of 1699 BC, and we put it at 1707 BC due to the
> 80-year correlation to Exodus which we place as congruent with the
> explosion of Santorin ca. August 4, 1627 BC, based on astronomical
> considerations. Moses is later the first king of the 17th Dynasty of
> Thebes as Sobek-EMSAf II a name actually written in the hieroglpyhs as
> "MO-SHE" (also known as Sobekhotep VIII or Sechem-re Schedtaui). Since
> we know that Moses flew from Thebes when he was around 40, this puts him
> in the Eastern Delta Region of Egypt ca. 1667 BC, where Moses's Biblical
> Midianites are none other than the Hyksos, i.e. the Palestinians
> (nomadic desert dwellers), of whose king Moses takes one daughter as a
> wife. The 16th Dynasty King known as Anather is then Gideon (so also
> clearly readable according to the hieroglyphs as Hand-D-N i.e.
> GI-DI-N)."
>
> Enjoy,
>
> Andis
>

Dear LexiLine group,
   David Rohl's special TV program 'Pharaohs & Kings: A Biblical Quest' was
remastered & re-released last September, but only on a very limited basis, and
there are very few copies left (since we didn't have many to start with!)
  People have been asking us for 2 years when these would be released. There are
NO plans to reorder at this point.
   (Also, if you order one of these DVDs, there is a special 3rd DVD
available- just write to me and ask me about it!)
   You can order both 'Pharaohs & Kings' and the David Rohl seminar shot in
Florida ('Myth or Reality') here:
   http://stretchproductions.com/RohlProducts.html
   David Rohl video SAMPLES in the center of the page:
http://www.youtube.com/StretchProductions
And, the samples can also be found at my Facebook page, in the video
section.
    Thanks everyone!
-Cami McCraw
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newchronology/

Hi Andis

Saw your mention of faulty radiocarbon dating for Gobekli Tepe and also noticed
that you challenged the dating of Nabta Playa. In both cases you chopped many
thousands of years off the accepted dating according to mainstream
archaeologists.

Are you generally of the opinion that mankind lacked the ability to create
megalithic structures or stone arrangements in stellar alignment as early as
10,000 BC? Or is it just that these two cases are questionable in your mind and
otherwise mankind was capable of such activities in 10,000BC? Just curious why
you appear to filter out the earliest dating?

Open Minded

Polestar101

truncated...

> > Dear LexiLiners,
> >
> > I am still working on my formal write-up of my Gobekli Tepe
> decipherment
> > which will show that Göbekli Tepe is astronomical in nature and
> > oriented to the stars ca. 3800 B.C. I conclude that this location near
> > Urfa is where the Hebrew Calendar began.  Gobekli Tepe is only 12
> > kilometers (about 7.5 miles) from Urfa (currently called Sanliurfa or
> > Edessa), the legendary birthplace of the Biblical Abraham, and only 38
> > kilometers (23.75 miles) from his later residence at Haran. (see Am
> > Anfang war Anatolien)
> <http://www.aero-durit.de/downloads/Anatolien.pdf>
> >
> > I initially dated the installation of the standing stones by what I
> have
> > deciphered to be the relief depiction of the appearance of Halley's
> > Comet on one of the stones, which by its location on that stone can
> only
> > be ca. 3800 B.C.
> >
> > The date assigned to these megaliths (allegedly 11000 years old) by
> the
> > mainstream archaeologists is woefully wrong and based on the wishful
> > thinking of mainstream archaeologists generally in search of fame and
> > fortune who always seem to find "an older yet" archaeological site,
> i.e.
> > it is a self-fulfilling prophecy which subliminally creeps into the
> > dating process and skews the accurate interpretation of the data.
> >
> > The  faulty chronological assessment of Gobekli Tepe is based on some
> > questionable radiocarbon dating and equally gullible comparative
> dating
> > of stone tools found at or near the site similar to other falsely
> dated
> > stone tools found at another site - chronological devices which are
> > simply fantasy stretches at best. Because no pots or grains have been
> > found at the site, it is illogically presumed to predate their
> > development - sort of like finding a modern ruin in Death Valley -
> where
> > also no pots or grains will be found.
> >
> > As correctly written online by Omar W. Rosales in a comment at the
> > Smithsonian Magazine online:
> > <http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html>
> >
> > "... you still need independent verification of the age of the burial
> > site. It mentions that stone implements (whether they are flint, or
> > knives, or whatever) resemble those found in another site, where the
> > artifacts in the other site radiocarbon date to 11000 B.C. Okay, so
> how
> > does prove that Gobekli Tepe dates around 11000 B.C.? If there are
> wood
> > fragments, pottery shards, or some other type of carbon-based item at
> > Gobekli, then test these to establish the date. Although undiscovered
> > sites with monumental architecture probably pre-date our discovered
> (and
> > well-known) archaeological sites, you still need to independently
> verify
> > the dates. - Omar W. Rosales J.D. http://www.elementalshaman.com
> > Posted by Omar W. Rosales on October 24,2008 | 03:15PM"
> >
> > Equally unconvincing is the radiocarbon analysis of organic materials
> > found at the site, based on a very questionable find which alleges
> that
> > "old" organic material has been found adhering to the stones. Since
> the
> > stones were purposefully buried - i.e. covered with earth from the
> > surrounding region, any age is possible by radiocarbon analysis
> > depending on what organic materials were resident in the earth used to
> > cover up the stones, or indeed, into which the stones were originally
> > placed. That evidence can not be used to date the megalithic site. A
> > similar error has been made in Egypt in dating Nabta Playa to be far
> > older than it actually is, since the radiocarbon evidence directly at
> > the stones correctly in fact dates them to ca. 3000 B.C. rather than
> the
> > thousands of years earlier which the archaeologists intentionally and
> > totally erroneously preferred to choose. The archaeologists at Nabta
> > Playa in Egypt then took the radiocarbon dating from more distantly
> > removed ancient hearths at the oasis because they gave an older date -
> a
> > date which has nothing, however, to do with the Nabta Playa megaliths,
> > which date by my research to ca. 3000 BC.
> >
> >
> > In fact the German Archaeological Institute (Deutsches
> > Archäologisches Institut) itself writes at its Göbekli Tepe
> > website <http://www.dainst.org/index.php?id=642&sessionLanguage=en>  :
> > "As early as 1963 Göbekli Tepe had been pinpointed as an
> > archaeological site in the course of a Turkish-American survey, and in
> > 1980 appeared Peter Benedict's report on the mound. The full
> > significance of the site, however, was not yet apparent. The flanks of
> > the rise, strewn with large cut blocks of masonry as well as countless
> > implements of chipped stone, certainly did not bring to mind an
> > establishment from mankind's earliest period of settlement, i.e. from
> > the time the Paleolithic/Mesolithic hunters were first shifting to a
> > sedentary life of farming."
> >
> >
> > Indeed, simple logic suggests that the current mainsteam dating of the
> > Göbekli Tepe megaliths is far off the mark, since it would presume
> > that the ancients possessed a stone technology 10000 years ago which
> > then simply vanished from the face of the earth for thousands of
> years.
> > Any time that there is not a believable cohesive chronological stream
> of
> > evidence for any given technology over time, irrationally ancient
> dating
> > given to that technology by the sensation-hungry mainstream
> > archaeologists can be presumed to be totally faulty. It seems every
> new
> > find made today is the oldest and the best - the reality of course is
> > otherwise. As written by Alex Hunger at megalithic.co.uk
> > <http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=14968>  : "One is
> reminded,
> > to some extent of the temples in Malta, which were built 5,000 years
> > later. " The observation is correct - the Malta Temples show
> > similarities - only it was NOT 5000 years later.
> >
> >
> >
> > In the interim Gwynneth Anderson has a standard-type posting at the
> > Examiner titled
> > Göbekli Tepe: Standing stones from humanity�'s oldest temple
> >
> <http://www.examiner.com/x-11199-Archeological-Travel-Examiner%7Ey2009m8\
> \
> > d3-Gobekli-Tepe-Standing-stones-from-humanitys-oldest-temple>  -
> > including a YouTube video (the chanting music may not be everyone's
> > taste), but the archaeologists have no insight as to the purpose of
> this
> > megalithic site, as might be expected. Really, they have no clue.
> >
> > There are now several Gobekli Tepe videos availabe on YouTube:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFgcmXRHcLU&feature=related
> > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFgcmXRHcLU&feature=related>
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XqfjWCUgfk
> > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XqfjWCUgfk>
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmSIG4qV2Sg&feature=related
> > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmSIG4qV2Sg&feature=related>   (in
> > German language - Göbekli Tepe Stelenscan)
> >
> > Göbekli Tepe I <G%C3%B6bekli%20Tepe%20I>   (in German)
> >
> > Göbekli Tepe II
> > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU2qwoMfq-U&feature=related>   (in
> > German)
> >
> > Göbekli Tepe Official Website (very poor)
> > Deutsches Archäologisches Institut
> > <http://www.dainst.org/index.php?id=642&sessionLanguage=en>
> (official
> > Göbekli Tepe  site of the German Archaeological Institute)
> >
> >
> <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,452365,00.html?sPage=fnc/scitech/ar\
> \
> > chaeology/>
> >
> > I have ordered Klaus Schmidt's book (only available in German) and
> hope
> > it is better than the dearth of quality information available online:
> >
> > Sie bauten die ersten Tempel: Das rätselhafte Heiligtum der
> > Steinzeitjäger
> >
> <http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2F\
> \
> >
> www.amazon.de%2FSie-bauten-ersten-Tempel-Steinzeitj%25C3%25A4ger%2Fdp%2F\
> \
> >
> 3406535003&ei=UJqBSoiLFo2LsAaKiqzNCQ&usg=AFQjCNEVuxiC-GxrRhcavhyz3OE58YG\
> \
> > 2Ag&sig2=rVCsa9e89tuova-1064D2Q>   (Gebundene Ausgabe)
> > von Klaus Schmidt (Autor)
> >
> > Enjoy,
> >
> > Andis"
>
> Andis
>

Conflagration?? We agree the Amorites did not build the site because it far
predates them (and therefore has nothing to do with their lack of wheat??). But
why do you consider the dating "absurdly old"? All over the world archaeologists
are pushing back the clock with new discoveries. Gobekli Tepe and Nabta Playa
are evidence that fit. We no longer have to fit civilization into a Biblical
6000 year limitation.


--- In LexiLine@yahoogroups.com, "earlofeden12" <a1ndiskaulins@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Polestar1,
>
> Thank you for your excellent comment. I have pre-answered many of your
> questions previously in my German-language article Das Tanum System -
> ein alteurop�isch-afrikanisches Vermessungssystem at
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/12402525/Das-Tanum-System-ein-alteuropaischafr\
> ikanisches-Vermessungssystem-DOC
> <http://www.scribd.com/doc/12402525/Das-Tanum-System-ein-alteuropaischaf\
> rikanisches-Vermessungssystem-DOC>   and due to your comment I am right
> now working to put that into English as soon as I can since a German
> version is not of much use to you or most of our audience here at
> LexiLine. Still, if you examine the German version - many graphics - you
> will get more information about my reasons.
>
> There are however many, many other reasons for my challenging the
> radiocarbon dating of Gobekli Tepe (and affiliated sites) and of Nabta
> Playa.
>
> You might want to read  the following material which I quote from the
> Wikipedia article on AMORITE at  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorite
> which shows that as late as the 3rd Millennium, the approximate highland
> area in question for Gobekli Tepe and surroundings was predominantly
> occupied by highland people who knew no grain and whose culture was at
> the lowest level. The mainstream archaeologists use the absurd argument
> that since no grain was found at Gobekli Tepe, then it must predate the
> origins of agriculture. But the Amorite data tells us that their
> primitive state of culture prevailed in this general region until much,
> MUCH later.
>
> Let me tell you one thing - there are many in mainstream archaeology who
> are superb con-men who are conning a great number of their fellows and
> laymen - I would call these the "chumps" or "suckers" - into thinking
> that their digs in Anatolia involve the real, real origins of culture at
> some absurdly old date. That is just a bunch of hokum based on some very
> sparse carbon dating of charcoal in that area which might just as well
> stem from some ancient natural fiery conflagration.
>
> Just read the Wikipedia material:
>
> "In the earliest Sumerian sources, beginning about 2400 BC, the land of
> the Amorites ("the Mar.tu land") is associated with the West, including
> Syria and Canaan, although their ultimate origin may have been Arabia.
> They appear as nomadic people in the Mesopotamian sources, and they are
> especially connected with the mountainous region of Jebel Bishri in
> Syria called as the "mountain of the Amorites". The ethnic terms Amurru
> and Amar were used for them in Assyria and Egypt respectively....
>
> In early inscriptions, all western lands, including Syria and Canaan,
> were known as "the land of the Amorites". "The MAR.TU land" appears in
> the earliest Sumerian texts, such as Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, as
> well as early tablets from Ebla; and for the Akkadian kings Mar.tu was
> one of the "Four Quarters" surrounding Akkad, along with Subartu, Sumer
> and Elam. The Akkadian king Naram-Sin records campaigns against them in
> northern Syria ca. 2240 BC, and his successor Shar-Kali-Sharri followed
> suit.
>
> By the time of the Neo-Sumerian Ur-III empire, immigrating Amorites had
> become such a force that kings such as Shu-Sin were obliged to construct
> a 170 mile wall from the Tigris to the Euphrates to hold them off [3].
> These Amorites appear as nomadic clans ruled by fierce tribal chiefs,
> who forced themselves into lands they needed to graze their herds. Some
> of the Akkadian literature of this era speaks disparagingly of the
> Amorites, and implies that the neo-Sumerians viewed their nomadic way of
> life with disgust and contempt, for example:
>
> "The MAR.TU who know no grain.... The MAR.TU who know no house nor town,
> the boors of the mountains.... The MAR.TU who digs up truffles... who
> does not bend his knees (to cultivate the land), who eats raw meat, who
> has no house during his lifetime, who is not buried after death...[4]
>
> They have prepared wheat and g�-nunuz (grain) as a confection, but
> an Amorite will eat it without even recognizing what it contains![5] "
>
> These were the people who inhabited most of the highlands of Anatolia,
> clear down to the days of written history. Of course, they did not build
> the Temple of Gobekli Tepe, but their fierce primitive presence was
> surely the reason that the people who DID build Gobekli Tepe left the
> region and covered their Temple under a mountain of earth as they left
> the region and moved southward to ultimately found Pharaonic
> civilization.
>
> I will post my English version of the Tanum System soon - for there is
> much, much more to be said.
>
> Enjoy,
>
> Andis
>
>
>
> --- In LexiLine@yahoogroups.com, "polestar101" <wispr2m@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Andis
> >
> > Saw your mention of faulty radiocarbon dating for Gobekli Tepe and
> also noticed that you challenged the dating of Nabta Playa. In both
> cases you chopped many thousands of years off the accepted dating
> according to mainstream archaeologists.
> >
> > Are you generally of the opinion that mankind lacked the ability to
> create megalithic structures or stone arrangements in stellar alignment
> as early as 10,000 BC? Or is it just that these two cases are
> questionable in your mind and otherwise mankind was capable of such
> activities in 10,000BC? Just curious why you appear to filter out the
> earliest dating?
> >
> > Open Minded
> >
> > Polestar101
> >
> > truncated...
> >
> > > > Dear LexiLiners,
> > > >
> > > > I am still working on my formal write-up of my Gobekli Tepe
> > > decipherment
> > > > which will show that Göbekli Tepe is astronomical in nature
> and
> > > > oriented to the stars ca. 3800 B.C. I conclude that this location
> near
> > > > Urfa is where the Hebrew Calendar began.  Gobekli Tepe is only 12
> > > > kilometers (about 7.5 miles) from Urfa (currently called Sanliurfa
> or
> > > > Edessa), the legendary birthplace of the Biblical Abraham, and
> only 38
> > > > kilometers (23.75 miles) from his later residence at Haran. (see
> Am
> > > > Anfang war Anatolien)
> > > <http://www.aero-durit.de/downloads/Anatolien.pdf>
> > > >
> > > > I initially dated the installation of the standing stones by what
> I
> > > have
> > > > deciphered to be the relief depiction of the appearance of
> Halley's
> > > > Comet on one of the stones, which by its location on that stone
> can
> > > only
> > > > be ca. 3800 B.C.
> > > >
> > > > The date assigned to these megaliths (allegedly 11000 years old)
> by
> > > the
> > > > mainstream archaeologists is woefully wrong and based on the
> wishful
> > > > thinking of mainstream archaeologists generally in search of fame
> and
> > > > fortune who always seem to find "an older yet" archaeological
> site,
> > > i.e.
> > > > it is a self-fulfilling prophecy which subliminally creeps into
> the
> > > > dating process and skews the accurate interpretation of the data.
> > > >
> > > > The  faulty chronological assessment of Gobekli Tepe is based on
> some
> > > > questionable radiocarbon dating and equally gullible comparative
> > > dating
> > > > of stone tools found at or near the site similar to other falsely
> > > dated
> > > > stone tools found at another site - chronological devices which
> are
> > > > simply fantasy stretches at best. Because no pots or grains have
> been
> > > > found at the site, it is illogically presumed to predate their
> > > > development - sort of like finding a modern ruin in Death Valley -
> > > where
> > > > also no pots or grains will be found.
> > > >
> > > > As correctly written online by Omar W. Rosales in a comment at the
> > > > Smithsonian Magazine online:
> > > >
> <http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html>
> > > >
> > > > "... you still need independent verification of the age of the
> burial
> > > > site. It mentions that stone implements (whether they are flint,
> or
> > > > knives, or whatever) resemble those found in another site, where
> the
> > > > artifacts in the other site radiocarbon date to 11000 B.C. Okay,
> so
> > > how
> > > > does prove that Gobekli Tepe dates around 11000 B.C.? If there are
> > > wood
> > > > fragments, pottery shards, or some other type of carbon-based item
> at
> > > > Gobekli, then test these to establish the date. Although
> undiscovered
> > > > sites with monumental architecture probably pre-date our
> discovered
> > > (and
> > > > well-known) archaeological sites, you still need to independently
> > > verify
> > > > the dates. - Omar W. Rosales J.D. http://www.elementalshaman.com
> > > > Posted by Omar W. Rosales on October 24,2008 | 03:15PM"
> > > >
> > > > Equally unconvincing is the radiocarbon analysis of organic
> materials
> > > > found at the site, based on a very questionable find which alleges
> > > that
> > > > "old" organic material has been found adhering to the stones.
> Since
> > > the
> > > > stones were purposefully buried - i.e. covered with earth from the
> > > > surrounding region, any age is possible by radiocarbon analysis
> > > > depending on what organic materials were resident in the earth
> used to
> > > > cover up the stones, or indeed, into which the stones were
> originally
> > > > placed. That evidence can not be used to date the megalithic site.
> A
> > > > similar error has been made in Egypt in dating Nabta Playa to be
> far
> > > > older than it actually is, since the radiocarbon evidence directly
> at
> > > > the stones correctly in fact dates them to ca. 3000 B.C. rather
> than
> > > the
> > > > thousands of years earlier which the archaeologists intentionally
> and
> > > > totally erroneously preferred to choose. The archaeologists at
> Nabta
> > > > Playa in Egypt then took the radiocarbon dating from more
> distantly
> > > > removed ancient hearths at the oasis because they gave an older
> date -
> > > a
> > > > date which has nothing, however, to do with the Nabta Playa
> megaliths,
> > > > which date by my research to ca. 3000 BC.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In fact the German Archaeological Institute (Deutsches
> > > > Archäologisches Institut) itself writes at its Göbekli
> Tepe
> > > > website
> <http://www.dainst.org/index.php?id=642&sessionLanguage=en>  :
> > > > "As early as 1963 Göbekli Tepe had been pinpointed as an
> > > > archaeological site in the course of a Turkish-American survey,
> and in
> > > > 1980 appeared Peter Benedict's report on the mound. The full
> > > > significance of the site, however, was not yet apparent. The
> flanks of
> > > > the rise, strewn with large cut blocks of masonry as well as
> countless
> > > > implements of chipped stone, certainly did not bring to mind an
> > > > establishment from mankind's earliest period of settlement, i.e.
> from
> > > > the time the Paleolithic/Mesolithic hunters were first shifting to
> a
> > > > sedentary life of farming."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Indeed, simple logic suggests that the current mainsteam dating of
> the
> > > > Göbekli Tepe megaliths is far off the mark, since it would
> presume
> > > > that the ancients possessed a stone technology 10000 years ago
> which
> > > > then simply vanished from the face of the earth for thousands of
> > > years.
> > > > Any time that there is not a believable cohesive chronological
> stream
> > > of
> > > > evidence for any given technology over time, irrationally ancient
> > > dating
> > > > given to that technology by the sensation-hungry mainstream
> > > > archaeologists can be presumed to be totally faulty. It seems
> every
> > > new
> > > > find made today is the oldest and the best - the reality of course
> is
> > > > otherwise. As written by Alex Hunger at megalithic.co.uk
> > > > <http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=14968>  : "One is
> > > reminded,
> > > > to some extent of the temples in Malta, which were built 5,000
> years
> > > > later. " The observation is correct - the Malta Temples show
> > > > similarities - only it was NOT 5000 years later.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In the interim Gwynneth Anderson has a standard-type posting at
> the
> > > > Examiner titled
> > > > Göbekli Tepe: Standing stones from humanity�'s oldest
> temple
> > > >
> > >
> <http://www.examiner.com/x-11199-Archeological-Travel-Examiner%7Ey2009m8\
> \
> > > \
> > > > d3-Gobekli-Tepe-Standing-stones-from-humanitys-oldest-temple>  -
> > > > including a YouTube video (the chanting music may not be
> everyone's
> > > > taste), but the archaeologists have no insight as to the purpose
> of
> > > this
> > > > megalithic site, as might be expected. Really, they have no clue.
> > > >
> > > > There are now several Gobekli Tepe videos availabe on YouTube:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFgcmXRHcLU&feature=related
> > > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFgcmXRHcLU&feature=related>
> > > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XqfjWCUgfk
> > > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XqfjWCUgfk>
> > > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmSIG4qV2Sg&feature=related
> > > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmSIG4qV2Sg&feature=related>   (in
> > > > German language - Göbekli Tepe Stelenscan)
> > > >
> > > > Göbekli Tepe I <G%C3%B6bekli%20Tepe%20I>   (in German)
> > > >
> > > > Göbekli Tepe II
> > > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU2qwoMfq-U&feature=related>   (in
> > > > German)
> > > >
> > > > Göbekli Tepe Official Website (very poor)
> > > > Deutsches Archäologisches Institut
> > > > <http://www.dainst.org/index.php?id=642&sessionLanguage=en>
> > > (official
> > > > Göbekli Tepe  site of the German Archaeological Institute)
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,452365,00.html?sPage=fnc/scitech/ar\
> \
> > > \
> > > > chaeology/>
> > > >
> > > > I have ordered Klaus Schmidt's book (only available in German) and
> > > hope
> > > > it is better than the dearth of quality information available
> online:
> > > >
> > > > Sie bauten die ersten Tempel: Das rätselhafte Heiligtum der
> > > > Steinzeitjäger
> > > >
> > >
> <http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2F\
> \
> > > \
> > > >
> > >
> www.amazon.de%2FSie-bauten-ersten-Tempel-Steinzeitj%25C3%25A4ger%2Fdp%2F\
> \
> > > \
> > > >
> > >
> 3406535003&ei=UJqBSoiLFo2LsAaKiqzNCQ&usg=AFQjCNEVuxiC-GxrRhcavhyz3OE58YG\
> \
> > > \
> > > > 2Ag&sig2=rVCsa9e89tuova-1064D2Q>   (Gebundene Ausgabe)
> > > > von Klaus Schmidt (Autor)
> > > >
> > > > Enjoy,
> > > >
> > > > Andis"
> > >
> > > Andis
> > >
> >
>

"Comment CAFER H�Y�K
Most complete sequence in the East area (50 m2), yielding 13 levels with a total depth of 6 m over virgin soil; the occupation is reported to be continuous (Cauvin
et al. 1999, 89). In the West area only the Late Phase has been uncovered. Sample Ly-3773 from the Middle Phase is reported to lack sufficient carbon (o.c., 94). Samples Ly-2523 and Ly-2522, both from the West area, might stem from the `numerous fragments of charcoal� - or `carbonised wood� as they are described further on - associated with structures 18, 19 and 8 of Level IVc, which, incidentally, is destroyed by fire (o.c., 95, 96). Would these have been the remains of the wooden ceiling beams, as seems suggested? If so, is it warranted to hypothesize similar samples for the earlier phases as well? Most of the wood used at Cafer seems to have been salix and populus growing along the Degirmendere stream (Willcox 1991). The `old-wood� problem seems to have been not an issue here, for explaining the big discrepancies within the Cafer 14C dates corpus."

"Holocene environmental changes in the northern Fertile Crescent remain poorly understood because of the scarcity of local proxy records in the region. In this study we investigated pedogenic (soil-formed) carbonate coatings on stones at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic site G�bekli Tepe as an indicator of local early-mid Holocene environmental changes. The ¹⁴C ages and stable isotopic composition of carbon and oxygen in thin (0.2-0.3 mm thick) pedogenic carbonate lamina indicate two main periods of coating formation: the early-Holocene (ca. 10000-6000 cal yr BP) and the mid-Holocene (ca. 6000-4000 cal yr BP). During the first period, there was an inverse relationship between δ¹³C and δ¹⁸O curves: a decrease in δ¹³C values coincide with an increase in δ¹⁸O values. For this period a trend towards higher temperatures is suggested. In the mid-Holocene, the mean rate of coating growth was 2-3 times higher than in the early Holocene. Both δ¹³C and δ¹⁸O reached their maximum values during this time and the direction of changes of the δ¹³C and δ¹⁸O curves became similar. The combination of data suggests that this period was the most humid in the Holocene and on average warmer than the early Holocene. At ca. 4000 cal yr BP secondary accumulation of carbonate ceased, presumably reflecting a shift to a more arid climate."

"The chronology of the Ancient Near East is poorly understood. Although many references give exact dates for events, such as the building of the Great Pyramid or the rise of certain kings in Babylon, in reality such dates are debated. Wood has the potential to resolve such debates. Many ancient buildings and other artefacts were
constructed from wood, and in some circumstances, it is possible to precisely date this wood, by examining the pattern of its tree rings. Work on dating wood from the Ancient Near East has been done primarily in Anatolia (roughly, modern Turkey). This work has been conducted over many years and been published in respected journals; it has claimed to provide definitive dates for several important events in the early history of civilisation. Herein is reviewed some of this wood-dating research. The primary conclusion is that the research has invalidating flaws, which are obvious upon inspection. The underlying issue is that the system under which tree-ring research generally is conducted lacks transparency....

During ancient times, wood was often reused. For example, an investigation of the remains of a Middle Bronze Age building, which comprised 26 timbers, concluded that all the timbers had been reused from some Early Bronze Age structure-dated several centuries earlier [Kuniholm, 1994]. In fact, similar reuse of wood still occurs in modern times: for example, the investigators have concluded that the joist in a modern Turkish house is over 6000 years old [Kuniholm, 2001]. Thus, when a tree is recovered from an archaeological site, it cannot be known a priori in which millennium the tree grew....

[footnote 11 provides as follows] Detailed information has also been published for the site of K�ltepe [Kuniholm & Newton, 1989; Newton, 2004: app.2]. The investigators, however, no longer claim to have a date for this site that is near reliable; for example, Newton & Kuniholm [2004] say that the date "should be thought of as tentative, subject to ... modification"-indeed, their t-score is only 4.1. (The tentative match is actually just the best that could be found within the date range allowed by radiocarbon ages: this is not a valid basis for dating ...  furthermore, the radiocarbon ages are internally inconsistent and are unlikely to have the accuracy assumed.

"a system in which investigators can claim any plausible results and are accountable to no one.

Andis - You wrote "Once a technology has been perfected, it is used further and
in other places - it does not simply disappear for millennia."

Your argument is not supported by the facts:

It was thought that Volta "invented" the battery in about 1700AD - until the
discovery of the Babylon batteries - why was this technology not perfected
several thousand years earlier?

It was thought that complex geared devices were "invented" during the great
clock making era of 1200 -1400AD Europe, until the discovery of the Antikythera
device. Why did this technology vanish for over a thousand years?

Aristarchus of Samos wrote about a heliocentric system almost 2000 years before
Copernicus.

And look at the history of denistry (8000BC Pakistan), orthodontics (3000BC
Egypt), domestication of pets, hybridization of plants, brain surgery, etc. etc.
- all things that were lost for thousands of years before being "invented".
There are hundreds more.

The ancient world was doing some rather amazing things but most of it was lost
well prior to or during the Dark Ages. Things seem to go backwards for thousands
of years. That is a fact.

The Ancients themselves through numerous myth and folklore hint at a long lost
higher age - (over 30 unrelated ancient cultures spoke of it according to
Giorgio deSantillana, former professor of history of science at MIT). Gobekli
Tepe and Nabta Playa fit the myth and folklore  - and they fit the
archaeological pattern - that is a fact.

Walter




--- In LexiLine@yahoogroups.com, "earlofeden12" <a1ndiskaulins@...> wrote:
>
> Polestar 1,
>
> Thank you for your comment.
>
> Are you familiar with the supposed "evidence" from this region?
>
> Take a look at the article Upper Mesopotamia (SE TURKEY, N SYRIA and N
> IRAQ) 10,000 - 5000 cal BC by Damien Bischoff with the
> collaboration of Agathe Reingruber and Laurens Thissen (last update 12
> February 2006) at
> http://www.canew.org/files/CANeW%20Upper%20Mesopotamia%20C14%20dbase%20%\
> 28February%202006%29.pdf
> <http://www.canew.org/files/CANeW%20Upper%20Mesopotamia%20C14%20dbase%20\
> %28February%202006%29.pdf>   where Bischoff writes, for example:
> "Comment CAFER H�Y�K
> Most complete sequence in the East area (50 m2), yielding 13 levels with
> a total depth of 6 m over virgin soil; the occupation is reported to be
> continuous (Cauvin
> et al. 1999, 89). In the West area only the Late Phase has been
> uncovered. Sample Ly-3773 from the Middle Phase is reported to
> lack sufficient carbon (o.c., 94). Samples Ly-2523 and
> Ly-2522, both from the West area, might stem from the
> `numerous fragments of charcoal� - or
> `carbonised wood� as they are described further on
> - associated with structures 18, 19 and 8 of Level IVc, which,
> incidentally, is destroyed by fire (o.c., 95, 96). Would these have been
> the remains of the wooden ceiling beams, as seems suggested? If so, is
> it warranted to hypothesize similar samples for the earlier phases as
> well? Most of the wood used at Cafer seems to have been salix and
> populus growing along the Degirmendere stream (Willcox 1991). The
> `old-wood� problem seems to have been not an issue here,
> for explaining the big discrepancies within the Cafer 14C dates corpus."
> A specific study of Gobekli Tepe has been made via pedogenic carbonate
> coatings on the stones found there: Evidence for Holocene environmental
> changes in the northern Fertile Crescent provided by pedogenic carbonate
> coatings, as authored by Konstantin PUSTOVOYTOV, Klaus SCHMIDT  and
> Heinrich TAUBALD. The work is abstracted online at cat.inist.fr
> (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18698456
> <http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18698456>  ):
> "Holocene environmental changes in the northern Fertile Crescent remain
> poorly understood because of the scarcity of local proxy records in the
> region. In this study we investigated pedogenic (soil-formed) carbonate
> coatings on stones at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic site G�bekli Tepe as
> an indicator of local early-mid Holocene environmental changes. The 14C
> ages and stable isotopic composition of carbon and oxygen in thin
> (0.2-0.3 mm thick) pedogenic carbonate lamina indicate two main periods
> of coating formation: the early-Holocene (ca. 10000-6000 cal yr BP) and
> the mid-Holocene (ca. 6000-4000 cal yr BP). During the first period,
> there was an inverse relationship between δ13C and δ18O curves:
> a decrease in δ13C values coincide with an increase in δ18O
> values. For this period a trend towards higher temperatures is
> suggested. In the mid-Holocene, the mean rate of coating growth was 2-3
> times higher than in the early Holocene. Both δ13C and δ18O
> reached their maximum values during this time and the direction of
> changes of the δ13C and δ18O curves became similar. The
> combination of data suggests that this period was the most humid in the
> Holocene and on average warmer than the early Holocene. At ca. 4000 cal
> yr BP secondary accumulation of carbonate ceased, presumably reflecting
> a shift to a more arid climate."
>
> Essentially, this kind of dating is a scientific free-for-all where the
> data says what the authors want the data to say. The amount of coating
> on the stones is said to vary by climate epoch and variation is
> explained away by higher temperatures and humidity - whatever is needed
> to get the dates to fit. NO accumulation at all of carbonate is then
> presumed starting ca. 4000 BP, "presumably reflecting a shift to a more
> arid climate", for stones buried underground. But if carbonate in fact
> DID accumulate until clear up to the present time - which is the
> solution that apears most exact to us, also after 4000 BP, i.e. for 6000
> years up to their excavation in the present era, then the stones have in
> fact been dated 6000 years too old - and that gives us the accurate date
> of the construction of Gobekli Tepe at ca. 4000 to 3000 B.C., which I am
> quite sure by my astronomical assessment of the megaliths to be the
> correct date.
>
> By "conflagrations" previously I meant for example things like much
> older forest or brush fires for example that burned the wood used for
> radiocarbon dating. The ancient dating of Anatolia is based mostly on
> charcoal, what is called "carbonized wood". There are many problems
> involved in assigning that wood's actual origin to the period in which
> structures were constructed because it is not even known to what use
> carbonized wood was put. It stems mainly from ancient fruit and nut
> trees.
>
> The unreliability of Anatolian tree dating in principle is discussed at
> length e.g. in Anatolian tree-ring studies are untrustworthy by Douglas
> J. Keenan, The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, United Kingdom;
> doug.keenan@..., 22 February 2006, online at
> http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a.pdf
> <http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a.pdf>   where Keenan writes:
> "The chronology of the Ancient Near East is poorly understood. Although
> many references give exact dates for events, such as the building of the
> Great Pyramid or the rise of certain kings in Babylon, in reality such
> dates are debated. Wood has the potential to resolve such debates. Many
> ancient buildings and other artefacts were
> constructed from wood, and in some circumstances, it is possible to
> precisely date this wood, by examining the pattern of its tree rings.
> Work on dating wood from the Ancient Near East has been done primarily
> in Anatolia (roughly, modern Turkey). This work has been conducted over
> many years and been published in respected journals; it has claimed to
> provide definitive dates for several important events in the early
> history of civilisation. Herein is reviewed some of this wood-dating
> research. The primary conclusion is that the research has invalidating
> flaws, which are obvious upon inspection. The underlying issue is that
> the system under which tree-ring research generally is conducted lacks
> transparency....
>
> During ancient times, wood was often reused. For example, an
> investigation of the remains of a Middle Bronze Age building, which
> comprised 26 timbers, concluded that all the timbers had been reused
> from some Early Bronze Age structure-dated several centuries
> earlier [Kuniholm, 1994]. In fact, similar reuse of wood still occurs in
> modern times: for example, the investigators have concluded that the
> joist in a modern Turkish house is over 6000 years old [Kuniholm, 2001].
> Thus, when a tree is recovered from an archaeological site, it cannot be
> known a priori in which millennium the tree grew....
>
> [footnote 11 provides as follows] Detailed information has also been
> published for the site of K�ltepe [Kuniholm & Newton, 1989; Newton,
> 2004: app.2]. The investigators, however, no longer claim to have a date
> for this site that is near reliable; for example, Newton & Kuniholm
> [2004] say that the date "should be thought of as tentative,
> subject to ... modification"-indeed, their t-score is
> only 4.1. (The tentative match is actually just the best that could be
> found within the date range allowed by radiocarbon ages: this is not a
> valid basis for dating ...  furthermore, the radiocarbon ages are
> internally inconsistent and are unlikely to have the accuracy assumed.
> Keenan concludes that the whole historical dating game is:
> "a system in which investigators can claim any plausible results and are
> accountable to no one.
> That is also my opinion. It is a  pea and shell game by mainstream
> archaeology. See my postings about archaeology and "evidence" at "Law
> and Science <http://www.lawpundit.com/blog/2005/12/law-and-science.htm>
> ".
>
> My critique of current Anatolian dating has nothing to do with Biblical
> dates, as you seem to suggest. What it does have to do with is the fact
> that smoothly carved or cut pillars such as found at Gobekli Tepe do not
> surface 10000 years ago - and then we never hear of this technology
> again until this same technology surfaces about 3000 B.C. in places like
> Egypt. Technology transfer does not work way. Once a technology has been
> perfected, it is used further and in other places - it does not simply
> disappear for millennia. One of the main pieces of evidence proving that
> the Anatolian chronology is faulty is the fact that  it forces us to
> assume a break of many thousands of years between the first emergence of
> the Gobekli Tepe technology and the surfacing of that technology later
> elsewhere. Sorry. That is NOT believable. When the chronology is
> ACCURATE, there will be a clear continuity of technology.
>
> You write that Gobekli Tepe and Nabta Playa are evidence that fit. WHAT
> EVIDENCE? I have told you that the Nabta Playa evidence is taken from
> ancient oasis campfires somewhat removed from the precise megalithic
> lcoation at the oasis that have NOTHING to do with the megaliths found
> there and that radiocarbon dating from a campfire right at those stones
> dates from ca. 3000 BC. The archaeologists chose the older dating
> because its suits their purposes. You can "believe" whatever you want,
> but that is NOT science. Archaeologists "want" Nabta Playo to be older
> because it makes them famous. But that has nothing to do with true
> history. And the same is true for Anatolia.
>
> EVIDENCE? There are lots of problems with the subjective treatment of
> the evidence by the mainstream archaeologists in these regions.
>
> Enjoy,
>
> Andis
>
>
> --- In LexiLine@yahoogroups.com, "polestar101" <wispr2m@> wrote:
> >
> > Conflagration?? We agree the Amorites did not build the site because
> it far predates them (and therefore has nothing to do with their lack of
> wheat??). But why do you consider the dating "absurdly old"? All over
> the world archaeologists are pushing back the clock with new
> discoveries. Gobekli Tepe and Nabta Playa are evidence that fit. We no
> longer have to fit civilization into a Biblical 6000 year limitation.
> >
> >
> > --- In LexiLine@yahoogroups.com, "earlofeden12" a1ndiskaulins@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Polestar1,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your excellent comment. I have pre-answered many of
> your
> > > questions previously in my German-language article Das Tanum System
> -
> > > ein alteurop�isch-afrikanisches Vermessungssystem at
> > >
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/12402525/Das-Tanum-System-ein-alteuropaischafr\
> \
> > > ikanisches-Vermessungssystem-DOC
> > >
> <http://www.scribd.com/doc/12402525/Das-Tanum-System-ein-alteuropaischaf\
> \
> > > rikanisches-Vermessungssystem-DOC>   and due to your comment I am
> right
> > > now working to put that into English as soon as I can since a German
> > > version is not of much use to you or most of our audience here at
> > > LexiLine. Still, if you examine the German version - many graphics -
> you
> > > will get more information about my reasons.
> > >
> > > There are however many, many other reasons for my challenging the
> > > radiocarbon dating of Gobekli Tepe (and affiliated sites) and of
> Nabta
> > > Playa.
> > >
> > > You might want to read  the following material which I quote from
> the
> > > Wikipedia article on AMORITE at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorite
> > > which shows that as late as the 3rd Millennium, the approximate
> highland
> > > area in question for Gobekli Tepe and surroundings was predominantly
> > > occupied by highland people who knew no grain and whose culture was
> at
> > > the lowest level. The mainstream archaeologists use the absurd
> argument
> > > that since no grain was found at Gobekli Tepe, then it must predate
> the
> > > origins of agriculture. But the Amorite data tells us that their
> > > primitive state of culture prevailed in this general region until
> much,
> > > MUCH later.
> > >
> > > Let me tell you one thing - there are many in mainstream archaeology
> who
> > > are superb con-men who are conning a great number of their fellows
> and
> > > laymen - I would call these the "chumps" or "suckers" - into
> thinking
> > > that their digs in Anatolia involve the real, real origins of
> culture at
> > > some absurdly old date. That is just a bunch of hokum based on some
> very
> > > sparse carbon dating of charcoal in that area which might just as
> well
> > > stem from some ancient natural fiery conflagration.
> > >
> > > Just read the Wikipedia material:
> > >
> > > "In the earliest Sumerian sources, beginning about 2400 BC, the land
> of
> > > the Amorites ("the Mar.tu land") is associated with the West,
> including
> > > Syria and Canaan, although their ultimate origin may have been
> Arabia.
> > > They appear as nomadic people in the Mesopotamian sources, and they
> are
> > > especially connected with the mountainous region of Jebel Bishri in
> > > Syria called as the "mountain of the Amorites". The ethnic terms
> Amurru
> > > and Amar were used for them in Assyria and Egypt respectively....
> > >
> > > In early inscriptions, all western lands, including Syria and
> Canaan,
> > > were known as "the land of the Amorites". "The MAR.TU land" appears
> in
> > > the earliest Sumerian texts, such as Enmerkar and the Lord of
> Aratta, as
> > > well as early tablets from Ebla; and for the Akkadian kings Mar.tu
> was
> > > one of the "Four Quarters" surrounding Akkad, along with Subartu,
> Sumer
> > > and Elam. The Akkadian king Naram-Sin records campaigns against them
> in
> > > northern Syria ca. 2240 BC, and his successor Shar-Kali-Sharri
> followed
> > > suit.
> > >
> > > By the time of the Neo-Sumerian Ur-III empire, immigrating Amorites
> had
> > > become such a force that kings such as Shu-Sin were obliged to
> construct
> > > a 170 mile wall from the Tigris to the Euphrates to hold them off
> [3].
> > > These Amorites appear as nomadic clans ruled by fierce tribal
> chiefs,
> > > who forced themselves into lands they needed to graze their herds.
> Some
> > > of the Akkadian literature of this era speaks disparagingly of the
> > > Amorites, and implies that the neo-Sumerians viewed their nomadic
> way of
> > > life with disgust and contempt, for example:
> > >
> > > "The MAR.TU who know no grain.... The MAR.TU who know no house nor
> town,
> > > the boors of the mountains.... The MAR.TU who digs up truffles...
> who
> > > does not bend his knees (to cultivate the land), who eats raw meat,
> who
> > > has no house during his lifetime, who is not buried after
> death...[4]
> > >
> > > They have prepared wheat and g�-nunuz (grain) as a confection,
> but
> > > an Amorite will eat it without even recognizing what it contains![5]
> "
> > >
> > > These were the people who inhabited most of the highlands of
> Anatolia,
> > > clear down to the days of written history. Of course, they did not
> build
> > > the Temple of Gobekli Tepe, but their fierce primitive presence was
> > > surely the reason that the people who DID build Gobekli Tepe left
> the
> > > region and covered their Temple under a mountain of earth as they
> left
> > > the region and moved southward to ultimately found Pharaonic
> > > civilization.
> > >
> > > I will post my English version of the Tanum System soon - for there
> is
> > > much, much more to be said.
> > >
> > > Enjoy,
> > >
> > > Andis
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In LexiLine@yahoogroups.com, "polestar101" <wispr2m@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Andis
> > > >
> > > > Saw your mention of faulty radiocarbon dating for Gobekli Tepe and
> > > also noticed that you challenged the dating of Nabta Playa. In both
> > > cases you chopped many thousands of years off the accepted dating
> > > according to mainstream archaeologists.
> > > >
> > > > Are you generally of the opinion that mankind lacked the ability
> to
> > > create megalithic structures or stone arrangements in stellar
> alignment
> > > as early as 10,000 BC? Or is it just that these two cases are
> > > questionable in your mind and otherwise mankind was capable of such
> > > activities in 10,000BC? Just curious why you appear to filter out
> the
> > > earliest dating?
> > > >
> > > > Open Minded
> > > >
> > > > Polestar101
> > > >
> > > > truncated...
> > > >
> > > > > > Dear LexiLiners,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am still working on my formal write-up of my Gobekli Tepe
> > > > > decipherment
> > > > > > which will show that Göbekli Tepe is astronomical in
> nature
> > > and
> > > > > > oriented to the stars ca. 3800 B.C. I conclude that this
> location
> > > near
> > > > > > Urfa is where the Hebrew Calendar began.  Gobekli Tepe is only
> 12
> > > > > > kilometers (about 7.5 miles) from Urfa (currently called
> Sanliurfa
> > > or
> > > > > > Edessa), the legendary birthplace of the Biblical Abraham, and
> > > only 38
> > > > > > kilometers (23.75 miles) from his later residence at Haran.
> (see
> > > Am
> > > > > > Anfang war Anatolien)
> > > > > <http://www.aero-durit.de/downloads/Anatolien.pdf>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I initially dated the installation of the standing stones by
> what
> > > I
> > > > > have
> > > > > > deciphered to be the relief depiction of the appearance of
> > > Halley's
> > > > > > Comet on one of the stones, which by its location on that
> stone
> > > can
> > > > > only
> > > > > > be ca. 3800 B.C.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The date assigned to these megaliths (allegedly 11000 years
> old)
> > > by
> > > > > the
> > > > > > mainstream archaeologists is woefully wrong and based on the
> > > wishful
> > > > > > thinking of mainstream archaeologists generally in search of
> fame
> > > and
> > > > > > fortune who always seem to find "an older yet" archaeological
> > > site,
> > > > > i.e.
> > > > > > it is a self-fulfilling prophecy which subliminally creeps
> into
> > > the
> > > > > > dating process and skews the accurate interpretation of the
> data.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The  faulty chronological assessment of Gobekli Tepe is based
> on
> > > some
> > > > > > questionable radiocarbon dating and equally gullible
> comparative
> > > > > dating
> > > > > > of stone tools found at or near the site similar to other
> falsely
> > > > > dated
> > > > > > stone tools found at another site - chronological devices
> which
> > > are
> > > > > > simply fantasy stretches at best. Because no pots or grains
> have
> > > been
> > > > > > found at the site, it is illogically presumed to predate their
> > > > > > development - sort of like finding a modern ruin in Death
> Valley -
> > > > > where
> > > > > > also no pots or grains will be found.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As correctly written online by Omar W. Rosales in a comment at
> the
> > > > > > Smithsonian Magazine online:
> > > > > >
> > >
> <http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "... you still need independent verification of the age of the
> > > burial
> > > > > > site. It mentions that stone implements (whether they are
> flint,
> > > or
> > > > > > knives, or whatever) resemble those found in another site,
> where
> > > the
> > > > > > artifacts in the other site radiocarbon date to 11000 B.C.
> Okay,
> > > so
> > > > > how
> > > > > > does prove that Gobekli Tepe dates around 11000 B.C.? If there
> are
> > > > > wood
> > > > > > fragments, pottery shards, or some other type of carbon-based
> item
> > > at
> > > > > > Gobekli, then test these to establish the date. Although
> > > undiscovered
> > > > > > sites with monumental architecture probably pre-date our
> > > discovered
> > > > > (and
> > > > > > well-known) archaeological sites, you still need to
> independently
> > > > > verify
> > > > > > the dates. - Omar W. Rosales J.D.
> http://www.elementalshaman.com
> > > > > > Posted by Omar W. Rosales on October 24,2008 | 03:15PM"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Equally unconvincing is the radiocarbon analysis of organic
> > > materials
> > > > > > found at the site, based on a very questionable find which
> alleges
> > > > > that
> > > > > > "old" organic material has been found adhering to the stones.
> > > Since
> > > > > the
> > > > > > stones were purposefully buried - i.e. covered with earth from
> the
> > > > > > surrounding region, any age is possible by radiocarbon
> analysis
> > > > > > depending on what organic materials were resident in the earth
> > > used to
> > > > > > cover up the stones, or indeed, into which the stones were
> > > originally
> > > > > > placed. That evidence can not be used to date the megalithic
> site.
> > > A
> > > > > > similar error has been made in Egypt in dating Nabta Playa to
> be
> > > far
> > > > > > older than it actually is, since the radiocarbon evidence
> directly
> > > at
> > > > > > the stones correctly in fact dates them to ca. 3000 B.C.
> rather
> > > than
> > > > > the
> > > > > > thousands of years earlier which the archaeologists
> intentionally
> > > and
> > > > > > totally erroneously preferred to choose. The archaeologists at
> > > Nabta
> > > > > > Playa in Egypt then took the radiocarbon dating from more
> > > distantly
> > > > > > removed ancient hearths at the oasis because they gave an
> older
> > > date -
> > > > > a
> > > > > > date which has nothing, however, to do with the Nabta Playa
> > > megaliths,
> > > > > > which date by my research to ca. 3000 BC.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In fact the German Archaeological Institute (Deutsches
> > > > > > Archäologisches Institut) itself writes at its Göbekli
> > > Tepe
> > > > > > website
> > > <http://www.dainst.org/index.php?id=642&sessionLanguage=en>  :
> > > > > > "As early as 1963 Göbekli Tepe had been pinpointed as an
> > > > > > archaeological site in the course of a Turkish-American
> survey,
> > > and in
> > > > > > 1980 appeared Peter Benedict's report on the mound. The full
> > > > > > significance of the site, however, was not yet apparent. The
> > > flanks of
> > > > > > the rise, strewn with large cut blocks of masonry as well as
> > > countless
> > > > > > implements of chipped stone, certainly did not bring to mind
> an
> > > > > > establishment from mankind's earliest period of settlement,
> i.e.
> > > from
> > > > > > the time the Paleolithic/Mesolithic hunters were first
> shifting to
> > > a
> > > > > > sedentary life of farming."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Indeed, simple logic suggests that the current mainsteam
> dating of
> > > the
> > > > > > Göbekli Tepe megaliths is far off the mark, since it would
> > > presume
> > > > > > that the ancients possessed a stone technology 10000 years ago
> > > which
> > > > > > then simply vanished from the face of the earth for thousands
> of
> > > > > years.
> > > > > > Any time that there is not a believable cohesive chronological
> > > stream
> > > > > of
> > > > > > evidence for any given technology over time, irrationally
> ancient
> > > > > dating
> > > > > > given to that technology by the sensation-hungry mainstream
> > > > > > archaeologists can be presumed to be totally faulty. It seems
> > > every
> > > > > new
> > > > > > find made today is the oldest and the best - the reality of
> course
> > > is
> > > > > > otherwise. As written by Alex Hunger at megalithic.co.uk
> > > > > > <http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=14968>  : "One is
> > > > > reminded,
> > > > > > to some extent of the temples in Malta, which were built 5,000
> > > years
> > > > > > later. " The observation is correct - the Malta Temples show
> > > > > > similarities - only it was NOT 5000 years later.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the interim Gwynneth Anderson has a standard-type posting
> at
> > > the
> > > > > > Examiner titled
> > > > > > Göbekli Tepe: Standing stones from humanity�'s oldest
> > > temple
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> <http://www.examiner.com/x-11199-Archeological-Travel-Examiner%7Ey2009m8\
> \
> > > \
> > > > > \
> > > > > > d3-Gobekli-Tepe-Standing-stones-from-humanitys-oldest-temple>
> -
> > > > > > including a YouTube video (the chanting music may not be
> > > everyone's
> > > > > > taste), but the archaeologists have no insight as to the
> purpose
> > > of
> > > > > this
> > > > > > megalithic site, as might be expected. Really, they have no
> clue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are now several Gobekli Tepe videos availabe on YouTube:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFgcmXRHcLU&feature=related
> > > > > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFgcmXRHcLU&feature=related>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XqfjWCUgfk
> > > > > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XqfjWCUgfk>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmSIG4qV2Sg&feature=related
> > > > > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmSIG4qV2Sg&feature=related>
> (in
> > > > > > German language - Göbekli Tepe Stelenscan)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Göbekli Tepe I <G%C3%B6bekli%20Tepe%20I>   (in German)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Göbekli Tepe II
> > > > > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU2qwoMfq-U&feature=related>
> (in
> > > > > > German)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Göbekli Tepe Official Website (very poor)
> > > > > > Deutsches Archäologisches Institut
> > > > > > <http://www.dainst.org/index.php?id=642&sessionLanguage=en>
> > > > > (official
> > > > > > Göbekli Tepe  site of the German Archaeological Institute)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,452365,00.html?sPage=fnc/scitech/ar\
> \
> > > \
> > > > > \
> > > > > > chaeology/>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have ordered Klaus Schmidt's book (only available in German)
> and
> > > > > hope
> > > > > > it is better than the dearth of quality information available
> > > online:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sie bauten die ersten Tempel: Das rätselhafte Heiligtum
> der
> > > > > > Steinzeitjäger
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> <http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2F\
> \
> > > \
> > > > > \
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> www.amazon.de%2FSie-bauten-ersten-Tempel-Steinzeitj%25C3%25A4ger%2Fdp%2F\
> \
> > > \
> > > > > \
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> 3406535003&ei=UJqBSoiLFo2LsAaKiqzNCQ&usg=AFQjCNEVuxiC-GxrRhcavhyz3OE58YG\
> \
> > > \
> > > > > \
> > > > > > 2Ag&sig2=rVCsa9e89tuova-1064D2Q>   (Gebundene Ausgabe)
> > > > > > von Klaus Schmidt (Autor)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Enjoy,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Andis"
> > > > >
> > > > > Andis
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Walter,

No one doubts that some things are invented "before their time".

Examples are the inventions of Leonardo da Vinci, whose ideas predated their
actual later development: for example his ideas on "airplanes" viz.
"helicopters". These were not implemented in Leonardo's day because many of the
attendant technologies in materials which are necessary for their proper
operation did not yet exist.

It is sort of like inventing an automobile prior to the invention of the
combustion engine or the wheel. It does not work. So you are always going to
find some oddball inventions from the past which anticipate modern developments
but drop out of sight for a lack of sensible integration into the society under
question in the era at hand.

I personally do not buy the theory of a "long lost higher age" just because some
ancient humans also were capable of isolated individually great things.  Every
age will have their Leonardos....

In the case of Göbekli Tepe we have an entirely different matter, however,
than "mechanical inventions" or isolated discoveries of unusual inventions
before their time.

Rather, we are dealing with basic STONE-WORKING technology - the methods and the
tools. You can not just start out of nothing carving many-tonned stones into
straight-edged megaliths and moving them great distances. That kind of a
technology has to develop over time - and there has to be a record of that
stone-working development in the archaeological evidence.

At the same time, stone-working technology, once developed, does not just
disappear. Quite the contrary, archaeologists use stone-working technology as
one of their most basic methods for dating the progress of mankind on this
planet, as we know from such dating terms as Paleolithic or Neolithic, which
apply to various "stone ages".

Göbekli Tepe has stone work which is similar to the Malta Temples or also
Nabta Playa - and - in terms of the traditional dating of stone-working
technology - this fits in with a date of ca. 4000-3000 B.C.

Dating the stoneworking technology at Göbekli Tepe prior to that era is
technologically frivolous at best.

Andis


--- In LexiLine@yahoogroups.com, "polestar101" <wispr2m@...> wrote:
>
> Andis - You wrote "Once a technology has been perfected, it is used further
and in other places - it does not simply disappear for millennia."
>
> Your argument is not supported by the facts:
>
> It was thought that Volta "invented" the battery in about 1700AD - until the
discovery of the Babylon batteries - why was this technology not perfected
several thousand years earlier?
>
> It was thought that complex geared devices were "invented" during the great
clock making era of 1200 -1400AD Europe, until the discovery of the Antikythera
device. Why did this technology vanish for over a thousand years?
>
> Aristarchus of Samos wrote about a heliocentric system almost 2000 years
before Copernicus.
>
> And look at the history of denistry (8000BC Pakistan), orthodontics (3000BC
Egypt), domestication of pets, hybridization of plants, brain surgery, etc. etc.
- all things that were lost for thousands of years before being "invented".
There are hundreds more.
>
> The ancient world was doing some rather amazing things but most of it was lost
well prior to or during the Dark Ages. Things seem to go backwards for thousands
of years. That is a fact.
>
> The Ancients themselves through numerous myth and folklore hint at a long lost
higher age - (over 30 unrelated ancient cultures spoke of it according to
Giorgio deSantillana, former professor of history of science at MIT). Gobekli
Tepe and Nabta Playa fit the myth and folklore  - and they fit the
archaeological pattern - that is a fact.
>
> Walter
>
>
>
>
> --- In LexiLine@yahoogroups.com, "earlofeden12" <a1ndiskaulins@> wrote:
> >
> > Polestar 1,
> >
> > Thank you for your comment.
> >
> > Are you familiar with the supposed "evidence" from this region?
> >
> > Take a look at the article Upper Mesopotamia (SE TURKEY, N SYRIA and N
> > IRAQ) 10,000 - 5000 cal BC by Damien Bischoff with the
> > collaboration of Agathe Reingruber and Laurens Thissen (last update 12
> > February 2006) at
> > http://www.canew.org/files/CANeW%20Upper%20Mesopotamia%20C14%20dbase%20%\
> > 28February%202006%29.pdf
> > <http://www.canew.org/files/CANeW%20Upper%20Mesopotamia%20C14%20dbase%20\
> > %28February%202006%29.pdf>   where Bischoff writes, for example:
> > "Comment CAFER H�Y�K
> > Most complete sequence in the East area (50 m2), yielding 13 levels with
> > a total depth of 6 m over virgin soil; the occupation is reported to be
> > continuous (Cauvin
> > et al. 1999, 89). In the West area only the Late Phase has been
> > uncovered. Sample Ly-3773 from the Middle Phase is reported to
> > lack sufficient carbon (o.c., 94). Samples Ly-2523 and
> > Ly-2522, both from the West area, might stem from the
> > `numerous fragments of charcoal� - or
> > `carbonised wood� as they are described further on
> > - associated with structures 18, 19 and 8 of Level IVc, which,
> > incidentally, is destroyed by fire (o.c., 95, 96). Would these have been
> > the remains of the wooden ceiling beams, as seems suggested? If so, is
> > it warranted to hypothesize similar samples for the earlier phases as
> > well? Most of the wood used at Cafer seems to have been salix and
> > populus growing along the Degirmendere stream (Willcox 1991). The
> > `old-wood� problem seems to have been not an issue here,
> > for explaining the big discrepancies within the Cafer 14C dates corpus."
> > A specific study of Gobekli Tepe has been made via pedogenic carbonate
> > coatings on the stones found there: Evidence for Holocene environmental
> > changes in the northern Fertile Crescent provided by pedogenic carbonate
> > coatings, as authored by Konstantin PUSTOVOYTOV, Klaus SCHMIDT  and
> > Heinrich TAUBALD. The work is abstracted online at cat.inist.fr
> > (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18698456
> > <http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18698456>  ):
> > "Holocene environmental changes in the northern Fertile Crescent remain
> > poorly understood because of the scarcity of local proxy records in the
> > region. In this study we investigated pedogenic (soil-formed) carbonate
> > coatings on stones at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic site G�bekli Tepe as
> > an indicator of local early-mid Holocene environmental changes. The 14C
> > ages and stable isotopic composition of carbon and oxygen in thin
> > (0.2-0.3 mm thick) pedogenic carbonate lamina indicate two main periods
> > of coating formation: the early-Holocene (ca. 10000-6000 cal yr BP) and
> > the mid-Holocene (ca. 6000-4000 cal yr BP). During the first period,
> > there was an inverse relationship between δ13C and δ18O curves:
> > a decrease in δ13C values coincide with an increase in δ18O
> > values. For this period a trend towards higher temperatures is
> > suggested. In the mid-Holocene, the mean rate of coating growth was 2-3
> > times higher than in the early Holocene. Both δ13C and δ18O
> > reached their maximum values during this time and the direction of
> > changes of the δ13C and δ18O curves became similar. The
> > combination of data suggests that this period was the most humid in the
> > Holocene and on average warmer than the early Holocene. At ca. 4000 cal
> > yr BP secondary accumulation of carbonate ceased, presumably reflecting
> > a shift to a more arid climate."
> >
> > Essentially, this kind of dating is a scientific free-for-all where the
> > data says what the authors want the data to say. The amount of coating
> > on the stones is said to vary by climate epoch and variation is
> > explained away by higher temperatures and humidity - whatever is needed
> > to get the dates to fit. NO accumulation at all of carbonate is then
> > presumed starting ca. 4000 BP, "presumably reflecting a shift to a more
> > arid climate", for stones buried underground. But if carbonate in fact
> > DID accumulate until clear up to the present time - which is the
> > solution that apears most exact to us, also after 4000 BP, i.e. for 6000
> > years up to their excavation in the present era, then the stones have in
> > fact been dated 6000 years too old - and that gives us the accurate date
> > of the construction of Gobekli Tepe at ca. 4000 to 3000 B.C., which I am
> > quite sure by my astronomical assessment of the megaliths to be the
> > correct date.
> >
> > By "conflagrations" previously I meant for example things like much
> > older forest or brush fires for example that burned the wood used for
> > radiocarbon dating. The ancient dating of Anatolia is based mostly on
> > charcoal, what is called "carbonized wood". There are many problems
> > involved in assigning that wood's actual origin to the period in which
> > structures were constructed because it is not even known to what use
> > carbonized wood was put. It stems mainly from ancient fruit and nut
> > trees.
> >
> > The unreliability of Anatolian tree dating in principle is discussed at
> > length e.g. in Anatolian tree-ring studies are untrustworthy by Douglas
> > J. Keenan, The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, United Kingdom;
> > doug.keenan@, 22 February 2006, online at
> > http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a.pdf
> > <http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a.pdf>   where Keenan writes:
> > "The chronology of the Ancient Near East is poorly understood. Although
> > many references give exact dates for events, such as the building of the
> > Great Pyramid or the rise of certain kings in Babylon, in reality such
> > dates are debated. Wood has the potential to resolve such debates. Many
> > ancient buildings and other artefacts were
> > constructed from wood, and in some circumstances, it is possible to
> > precisely date this wood, by examining the pattern of its tree rings.
> > Work on dating wood from the Ancient Near East has been done primarily
> > in Anatolia (roughly, modern Turkey). This work has been conducted over
> > many years and been published in respected journals; it has claimed to
> > provide definitive dates for several important events in the early
> > history of civilisation. Herein is reviewed some of this wood-dating
> > research. The primary conclusion is that the research has invalidating
> > flaws, which are obvious upon inspection. The underlying issue is that
> > the system under which tree-ring research generally is conducted lacks
> > transparency....
> >
> > During ancient times, wood was often reused. For example, an
> > investigation of the remains of a Middle Bronze Age building, which
> > comprised 26 timbers, concluded that all the timbers had been reused
> > from some Early Bronze Age structure-dated several centuries
> > earlier [Kuniholm, 1994]. In fact, similar reuse of wood still occurs in
> > modern times: for example, the investigators have concluded that the
> > joist in a modern Turkish house is over 6000 years old [Kuniholm, 2001].
> > Thus, when a tree is recovered from an archaeological site, it cannot be
> > known a priori in which millennium the tree grew....
> >
> > [footnote 11 provides as follows] Detailed information has also been
> > published for the site of K�ltepe [Kuniholm & Newton, 1989; Newton,
> > 2004: app.2]. The investigators, however, no longer claim to have a date
> > for this site that is near reliable; for example, Newton & Kuniholm
> > [2004] say that the date "should be thought of as tentative,
> > subject to ... modification"-indeed, their t-score is
> > only 4.1. (The tentative match is actually just the best that could be
> > found within the date range allowed by radiocarbon ages: this is not a
> > valid basis for dating ...  furthermore, the radiocarbon ages are
> > internally inconsistent and are unlikely to have the accuracy assumed.
> > Keenan concludes that the whole historical dating game is:
> > "a system in which investigators can claim any plausible results and are
> > accountable to no one.
> > That is also my opinion. It is a  pea and shell game by mainstream
> > archaeology. See my postings about archaeology and "evidence" at "Law
> > and Science <http://www.lawpundit.com/blog/2005/12/law-and-science.htm>
> > ".
> >
> > My critique of current Anatolian dating has nothing to do with Biblical
> > dates, as you seem to suggest. What it does have to do with is the fact
> > that smoothly carved or cut pillars such as found at Gobekli Tepe do not
> > surface 10000 years ago - and then we never hear of this technology
> > again until this same technology surfaces about 3000 B.C. in places like
> > Egypt. Technology transfer does not work way. Once a technology has been
> > perfected, it is used further and in other places - it does not simply
> > disappear for millennia. One of the main pieces of evidence proving that
> > the Anatolian chronology is faulty is the fact that  it forces us to
> > assume a break of many thousands of years between the first emergence of
> > the Gobekli Tepe technology and the surfacing of that technology later
> > elsewhere. Sorry. That is NOT believable. When the chronology is
> > ACCURATE, there will be a clear continuity of technology.
> >
> > You write that Gobekli Tepe and Nabta Playa are evidence that fit. WHAT
> > EVIDENCE? I have told you that the Nabta Playa evidence is taken from
> > ancient oasis campfires somewhat removed from the precise megalithic
> > lcoation at the oasis that have NOTHING to do with the megaliths found
> > there and that radiocarbon dating from a campfire right at those stones
> > dates from ca. 3000 BC. The archaeologists chose the older dating
> > because its suits their purposes. You can "believe" whatever you want,
> > but that is NOT science. Archaeologists "want" Nabta Playo to be older
> > because it makes them famous. But that has nothing to do with true
> > history. And the same is true for Anatolia.
> >
> > EVIDENCE? There are lots of problems with the subjective treatment of
> > the evidence by the mainstream archaeologists in these regions.
> >
> > Enjoy,
> >
> > Andis
> >
> >
> > --- In LexiLine@yahoogroups.com, "polestar101" <wispr2m@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Conflagration?? We agree the Amorites did not build the site because
> > it far predates them (and therefore has nothing to do with their lack of
> > wheat??). But why do you consider the dating "absurdly old"? All over
> > the world archaeologists are pushing back the clock with new
> > discoveries. Gobekli Tepe and Nabta Playa are evidence that fit. We no
> > longer have to fit civilization into a Biblical 6000 year limitation.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In LexiLine@yahoogroups.com, "earlofeden12" a1ndiskaulins@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Polestar1,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for your excellent comment. I have pre-answered many of
> > your
> > > > questions previously in my German-language article Das Tanum System
> > -
> > > > ein alteurop�isch-afrikanisches Vermessungssystem at
> > > >
> > http://www.scribd.com/doc/12402525/Das-Tanum-System-ein-alteuropaischafr\
> > \
> > > > ikanisches-Vermessungssystem-DOC
> > > >
> > <http://www.scribd.com/doc/12402525/Das-Tanum-System-ein-alteuropaischaf\
> > \
> > > > rikanisches-Vermessungssystem-DOC>   and due to your comment I am
> > right
> > > > now working to put that into English as soon as I can since a German
> > > > version is not of much use to you or most of our audience here at
> > > > LexiLine. Still, if you examine the German version - many graphics -
> > you
> > > > will get more information about my reasons.
> > > >
> > > > There are however many, many other reasons for my challenging the
> > > > radiocarbon dating of Gobekli Tepe (and affiliated sites) and of
> > Nabta
> > > > Playa.
> > > >
> > > > You might want to read  the following material which I quote from
> > the
> > > > Wikipedia article on AMORITE at
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorite
> > > > which shows that as late as the 3rd Millennium, the approximate
> > highland
> > > > area in question for Gobekli Tepe and surroundings was predominantly
> > > > occupied by highland people who knew no grain and whose culture was
> > at
> > > > the lowest level. The mainstream archaeologists use the absurd
> > argument
> > > > that since no grain was found at Gobekli Tepe, then it must predate
> > the
> > > > origins of agriculture. But the Amorite data tells us that their
> > > > primitive state of culture prevailed in this general region until
> > much,
> > > > MUCH later.
> > > >
> > > > Let me tell you one thing - there are many in mainstream archaeology
> > who
> > > > are superb con-men who are conning a great number of their fellows
> > and
> > > > laymen - I would call these the "chumps" or "suckers" - into
> > thinking
> > > > that their digs in Anatolia involve the real, real origins of
> > culture at
> > > > some absurdly old date. That is just a bunch of hokum based on some
> > very
> > > > sparse carbon dating of charcoal in that area which might just as
> > well
> > > > stem from some ancient natural fiery conflagration.
> > > >
> > > > Just read the Wikipedia material:
> > > >
> > > > "In the earliest Sumerian sources, beginning about 2400 BC, the land
> > of
> > > > the Amorites ("the Mar.tu land") is associated with the West,
> > including
> > > > Syria and Canaan, although their ultimate origin may have been
> > Arabia.
> > > > They appear as nomadic people in the Mesopotamian sources, and they
> > are
> > > > especially connected with the mountainous region of Jebel Bishri in
> > > > Syria called as the "mountain of the Amorites". The ethnic terms
> > Amurru
> > > > and Amar were used for them in Assyria and Egypt respectively....
> > > >
> > > > In early inscriptions, all western lands, including Syria and
> > Canaan,
> > > > were known as "the land of the Amorites". "The MAR.TU land" appears
> > in
> > > > the earliest Sumerian texts, such as Enmerkar and the Lord of
> > Aratta, as
> > > > well as early tablets from Ebla; and for the Akkadian kings Mar.tu
> > was
> > > > one of the "Four Quarters" surrounding Akkad, along with Subartu,
> > Sumer
> > > > and Elam. The Akkadian king Naram-Sin records campaigns against them
> > in
> > > > northern Syria ca. 2240 BC, and his successor Shar-Kali-Sharri
> > followed
> > > > suit.
> > > >
> > > > By the time of the Neo-Sumerian Ur-III empire, immigrating Amorites
> > had
> > > > become such a force that kings such as Shu-Sin were obliged to
> > construct
> > > > a 170 mile wall from the Tigris to the Euphrates to hold them off
> > [3].
> > > > These Amorites appear as nomadic clans ruled by fierce tribal
> > chiefs,
> > > > who forced themselves into lands they needed to graze their herds.
> > Some
> > > > of the Akkadian literature of this era speaks disparagingly of the
> > > > Amorites, and implies that the neo-Sumerians viewed their nomadic
> > way of
> > > > life with disgust and contempt, for example:
> > > >
> > > > "The MAR.TU who know no grain.... The MAR.TU who know no house nor
> > town,
> > > > the boors of the mountains.... The MAR.TU who digs up truffles...
> > who
> > > > does not bend his knees (to cultivate the land), who eats raw meat,
> > who
> > > > has no house during his lifetime, who is not buried after
> > death...[4]
> > > >
> > > > They have prepared wheat and g�-nunuz (grain) as a confection,
> > but
> > > > an Amorite will eat it without even recognizing what it contains![5]
> > "
> > > >
> > > > These were the people who inhabited most of the highlands of
> > Anatolia,
> > > > clear down to the days of written history. Of course, they did not
> > build
> > > > the Temple of Gobekli Tepe, but their fierce primitive presence was
> > > > surely the reason that the people who DID build Gobekli Tepe left
> > the
> > > > region and covered their Temple under a mountain of earth as they
> > left
> > > > the region and moved southward to ultimately found Pharaonic
> > > > civilization.
> > > >
> > > > I will post my English version of the Tanum System soon - for there
> > is
> > > > much, much more to be said.
> > > >
> > > > Enjoy,
> > > >
> > > > Andis
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In LexiLine@yahoogroups.com, "polestar101" <wispr2m@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Andis
> > > > >
> > > > > Saw your mention of faulty radiocarbon dating for Gobekli Tepe and
> > > > also noticed that you challenged the dating of Nabta Playa. In both
> > > > cases you chopped many thousands of years off the accepted dating
> > > > according to mainstream archaeologists.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you generally of the opinion that mankind lacked the ability
> > to
> > > > create megalithic structures or stone arrangements in stellar
> > alignment
> > > > as early as 10,000 BC? Or is it just that these two cases are
> > > > questionable in your mind and otherwise mankind was capable of such
> > > > activities in 10,000BC? Just curious why you appear to filter out
> > the
> > > > earliest dating?
> > > > >
> > > > > Open Minded
> > > > >
> > > > > Polestar101
> > > > >
> > > > > truncated...
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Dear LexiLiners,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am still working on my formal write-up of my Gobekli Tepe
> > > > > > decipherment
> > > > > > > which will show that Göbekli Tepe is astronomical in
> > nature
> > > > and
> > > > > > > oriented to the stars ca. 3800 B.C. I conclude that this
> > location
> > > > near
> > > > > > > Urfa is where the Hebrew Calendar began.  Gobekli Tepe is only
> > 12
> > > > > > > kilometers (about 7.5 miles) from Urfa (currently called
> > Sanliurfa
> > > > or
> > > > > > > Edessa), the legendary birthplace of the Biblical Abraham, and
> > > > only 38
> > > > > > > kilometers (23.75 miles) from his later residence at Haran.
> > (see
> > > > Am
> > > > > > > Anfang war Anatolien)
> > > > > > <http://www.aero-durit.de/downloads/Anatolien.pdf>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I initially dated the installation of the standing stones by
> > what
> > > > I
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > deciphered to be the relief depiction of the appearance of
> > > > Halley's
> > > > > > > Comet on one of the stones, which by its location on that
> > stone
> > > > can
> > > > > > only
> > > > > > > be ca. 3800 B.C.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The date assigned to these megaliths (allegedly 11000 years
> > old)
> > > > by
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > mainstream archaeologists is woefully wrong and based on the
> > > > wishful
> > > > > > > thinking of mainstream archaeologists generally in search of
> > fame
> > > > and
> > > > > > > fortune who always seem to find "an older yet" archaeological
> > > > site,
> > > > > > i.e.
> > > > > > > it is a self-fulfilling prophecy which subliminally creeps
> > into
> > > > the
> > > > > > > dating process and skews the accurate interpretation of the
> > data.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The  faulty chronological assessment of Gobekli Tepe is based
> > on
> > > > some
> > > > > > > questionable radiocarbon dating and equally gullible
> > comparative
> > > > > > dating
> > > > > > > of stone tools found at or near the site similar to other
> > falsely
> > > > > > dated
> > > > > > > stone tools found at another site - chronological devices
> > which
> > > > are
> > > > > > > simply fantasy stretches at best. Because no pots or grains
> > have
> > > > been
> > > > > > > found at the site, it is illogically presumed to predate their
> > > > > > > development - sort of like finding a modern ruin in Death
> > Valley -
> > > > > > where
> > > > > > > also no pots or grains will be found.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As correctly written online by Omar W. Rosales in a comment at
> > the
> > > > > > > Smithsonian Magazine online:
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > <http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "... you still need independent verification of the age of the
> > > > burial
> > > > > > > site. It mentions that stone implements (whether they are
> > flint,
> > > > or
> > > > > > > knives, or whatever) resemble those found in another site,
> > where
> > > > the
> > > > > > > artifacts in the other site radiocarbon date to 11000 B.C.
> > Okay,
> > > > so
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > does prove that Gobekli Tepe dates around 11000 B.C.? If there
> > are
> > > > > > wood
> > > > > > > fragments, pottery shards, or some other type of carbon-based
> > item
> > > > at
> > > > > > > Gobekli, then test these to establish the date. Although
> > > > undiscovered
> > > > > > > sites with monumental architecture probably pre-date our
> > > > discovered
> > > > > > (and
> > > > > > > well-known) archaeological sites, you still need to
> > independently
> > > > > > verify
> > > > > > > the dates. - Omar W. Rosales J.D.
> > http://www.elementalshaman.com
> > > > > > > Posted by Omar W. Rosales on October 24,2008 | 03:15PM"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Equally unconvincing is the radiocarbon analysis of organic
> > > > materials
> > > > > > > found at the site, based on a very questionable find which
> > alleges
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > "old" organic material has been found adhering to the stones.
> > > > Since
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > stones were purposefully buried - i.e. covered with earth from
> > the
> > > > > > > surrounding region, any age is possible by radiocarbon
> > analysis
> > > > > > > depending on what organic materials were resident in the earth
> > > > used to
> > > > > > > cover up the stones, or indeed, into which the stones were
> > > > originally
> > > > > > > placed. That evidence can not be used to date the megalithic
> > site.
> > > > A
> > > > > > > similar error has been made in Egypt in dating Nabta Playa to
> > be
> > > > far
> > > > > > > older than it actually is, since the radiocarbon evidence
> > directly
> > > > at
> > > > > > > the stones correctly in fact dates them to ca. 3000 B.C.
> > rather
> > > > than
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > thousands of years earlier which the archaeologists
> > intentionally
> > > > and
> > > > > > > totally erroneously preferred to choose. The archaeologists at
> > > > Nabta
> > > > > > > Playa in Egypt then took the radiocarbon dating from more
> > > > distantly
> > > > > > > removed ancient hearths at the oasis because they gave an
> > older
> > > > date -
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > date which has nothing, however, to do with the Nabta Playa
> > > > megaliths,
> > > > > > > which date by my research to ca. 3000 BC.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In fact the German Archaeological Institute (Deutsches
> > > > > > > Archäologisches Institut) itself writes at its Göbekli
> > > > Tepe
> > > > > > > website
> > > > <http://www.dainst.org/index.php?id=642&sessionLanguage=en>  :
> > > > > > > "As early as 1963 Göbekli Tepe had been pinpointed as an
> > > > > > > archaeological site in the course of a Turkish-American
> > survey,
> > > > and in
> > > > > > > 1980 appeared Peter Benedict's report on the mound. The full
> > > > > > > significance of the site, however, was not yet apparent. The
> > > > flanks of
> > > > > > > the rise, strewn with large cut blocks of masonry as well as
> > > > countless
> > > > > > > implements of chipped stone, certainly did not bring to mind
> > an
> > > > > > > establishment from mankind's earliest period of settlement,
> > i.e.
> > > > from
> > > > > > > the time the Paleolithic/Mesolithic hunters were first
> > shifting to
> > > > a
> > > > > > > sedentary life of farming."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Indeed, simple logic suggests that the current mainsteam
> > dating of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > Göbekli Tepe megaliths is far off the mark, since it would
> > > > presume
> > > > > > > that the ancients possessed a stone technology 10000 years ago
> > > > which
> > > > > > > then simply vanished from the face of the earth for thousands
> > of
> > > > > > years.
> > > > > > > Any time that there is not a believable cohesive chronological
> > > > stream
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > evidence for any given technology over time, irrationally
> > ancient
> > > > > > dating
> > > > > > > given to that technology by the sensation-hungry mainstream
> > > > > > > archaeologists can be presumed to be totally faulty. It seems
> > > > every
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > find made today is the oldest and the best - the reality of
> > course
> > > > is
> > > > > > > otherwise. As written by Alex Hunger at megalithic.co.uk
> > > > > > > <http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=14968>  : "One is
> > > > > > reminded,
> > > > > > > to some extent of the temples in Malta, which were built 5,000
> > > > years
> > > > > > > later. " The observation is correct - the Malta Temples show
> > > > > > > similarities - only it was NOT 5000 years later.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the interim Gwynneth Anderson has a standard-type posting
> > at
> > > > the
> > > > > > > Examiner titled
> > > > > > > Göbekli Tepe: Standing stones from humanity�'s oldest
> > > > temple
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > <http://www.examiner.com/x-11199-Archeological-Travel-Examiner%7Ey2009m8\
> > \
> > > > \
> > > > > > \
> > > > > > > d3-Gobekli-Tepe-Standing-stones-from-humanitys-oldest-temple>
> > -
> > > > > > > including a YouTube video (the chanting music may not be
> > > > everyone's
> > > > > > > taste), but the archaeologists have no insight as to the
> > purpose
> > > > of
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > megalithic site, as might be expected. Really, they have no
> > clue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are now several Gobekli Tepe videos availabe on YouTube:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFgcmXRHcLU&feature=related
> > > > > > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFgcmXRHcLU&feature=related>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XqfjWCUgfk
> > > > > > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XqfjWCUgfk>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmSIG4qV2Sg&feature=related
> > > > > > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmSIG4qV2Sg&feature=related>
> > (in
> > > > > > > German language - Göbekli Tepe Stelenscan)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Göbekli Tepe I <G%C3%B6bekli%20Tepe%20I>   (in German)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Göbekli Tepe II
> > > > > > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU2qwoMfq-U&feature=related>
> > (in
> > > > > > > German)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Göbekli Tepe Official Website (very poor)
> > > > > > > Deutsches Archäologisches Institut
> > > > > > > <http://www.dainst.org/index.php?id=642&sessionLanguage=en>
> > > > > > (official
> > > > > > > Göbekli Tepe  site of the German Archaeological Institute)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,452365,00.html?sPage=fnc/scitech/ar\
> > \
> > > > \
> > > > > > \
> > > > > > > chaeology/>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have ordered Klaus Schmidt's book (only available in German)
> > and
> > > > > > hope
> > > > > > > it is better than the dearth of quality information available
> > > > online:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sie bauten die ersten Tempel: Das rätselhafte Heiligtum
> > der
> > > > > > > Steinzeitjäger
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > <http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2F\
> > \
> > > > \
> > > > > > \
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > www.amazon.de%2FSie-bauten-ersten-Tempel-Steinzeitj%25C3%25A4ger%2Fdp%2F\
> > \
> > > > \
> > > > > > \
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > 3406535003&ei=UJqBSoiLFo2LsAaKiqzNCQ&usg=AFQjCNEVuxiC-GxrRhcavhyz3OE58YG\
> > \
> > > > \
> > > > > > \
> > > > > > > 2Ag&sig2=rVCsa9e89tuova-1064D2Q>   (Gebundene Ausgabe)
> > > > > > > von Klaus Schmidt (Autor)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Enjoy,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Andis"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Andis
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

When you have the write-up completed, would you consider allowing it to be
published on Newsvine? There is quite an audience/interest in archeological
questions such as this one among its readership. Thanks for your work here.

--- In LexiLine@yahoogroups.com, "Andis Kaulins" <a1ndiskaulins@...> wrote:
>
> 12 LexiLine Newsletter 2009 Gobekli Tepe Decipherment Dating Exhibition
> & Videos
>
> Dear LexiLiners,
>
> I am still working on my formal write-up of my Gobekli Tepe decipherment
> which will show that Göbekli Tepe is astronomical in nature and
> oriented to the stars ca. 3800 B.C. I conclude that this location near
> Urfa is where the Hebrew Calendar began.  Gobekli Tepe is only 12
> kilometers (about 7.5 miles) from Urfa (currently called Sanliurfa or
> Edessa), the legendary birthplace of the Biblical Abraham, and only 38
> kilometers (23.75 miles) from his later residence at Haran. (see Am
> Anfang war Anatolien) <http://www.aero-durit.de/downloads/Anatolien.pdf>
>

Andis -Why should the expression of ideas in stonework be viewed any differently
than ideas expressed in metal work or woodwork? These are just mediums and each
require specialized knowledge and tools.

When I was a boy someone like you told me that 500 years ago we could hardly
build ships larger than the ones "needed" by Columbus to sail to the "new
world".  Sometime later archaeologists discovered that there were ships twice
the length of the Columbian ships - and the Egyptians built them over 4000 years
ago! (i.e. solar boat of Khufu)

I grant you the Dark Ages destroyed or obscured most of the evidence of ancient
accomplishments long before we ever had a chance to "discover" it. But follow
the trends of forensic archaeology today and you will notice we are now
constantly and dramatically pushing back the clock on mankind's capabilities.
Over the next ten years I suspect we will find many many more sites that confirm
the mainstream carbon dating of Gobekli Tepe and Nabta Playa.

We are living through a very exciting era of discovery � with many indications
the universal myths of a long lost Golden Age may have a basis in fact. Best to
keep an open mind.

Cheers

>

--- In LexiLine@yahoogroups.com, "earlofeden12" <a1ndiskaulins@...> wrote:
>
> Walter,
>
> No one doubts that some things are invented "before their time".
>
> Examples are the inventions of Leonardo da Vinci, whose ideas predated their
actual later development: for example his ideas on "airplanes" viz.
"helicopters". These were not implemented in Leonardo's day because many of the
attendant technologies in materials which are necessary for their proper
operation did not yet exist.
>
> It is sort of like inventing an automobile prior to the invention of the
combustion engine or the wheel. It does not work. So you are always going to
find some oddball inventions from the past which anticipate modern developments
but drop out of sight for a lack of sensible integration into the society under
question in the era at hand.

> I personally do not buy the theory of a "long lost higher age" just because
some ancient humans also were capable of isolated individually great things. 
Every age will have their Leonardos....
>
> In the case of G&#246;bekli Tepe we have an entirely different matter,
however, than "mechanical inventions" or isolated discoveries of unusual
inventions before their time.
>
> Rather, we are dealing with basic STONE-WORKING technology - the methods and
the tools. You can not just start out of nothing carving many-tonned stones into
straight-edged megaliths and moving them great distances. That kind of a
technology has to develop over time - and there has to be a record of that
stone-working development in the archaeological evidence.
>
> At the same time, stone-working technology, once developed, does not just
disappear. Quite the contrary, archaeologists use stone-working technology as
one of their most basic methods for dating the progress of mankind on this
planet, as we know from such dating terms as Paleolithic or Neolithic, which
apply to various "stone ages".
>
> G&#246;bekli Tepe has stone work which is similar to the Malta Temples or also
Nabta Playa - and - in terms of the traditional dating of stone-working
technology - this fits in with a date of ca. 4000-3000 B.C.
>
> Dating the stoneworking technology at G&#246;bekli Tepe prior to that era is
technologically frivolous at best.
>
> Andis
>
>
> --- In LexiLine@yahoogroups.com, "polestar101" <wispr2m@> wrote:
> >
> > Andis - You wrote "Once a technology has been perfected, it is used further
and in other places - it does not simply disappear for millennia."
> >
> > Your argument is not supported by the facts:
> >
> > It was thought that Volta "invented" the battery in about 1700AD - until the
discovery of the Babylon batteries - why was this technology not perfected
several thousand years earlier?
> >
> > It was thought that complex geared devices were "invented" during the great
clock making era of 1200 -1400AD Europe, until the discovery of the Antikythera
device. Why did this technology vanish for over a thousand years?
> >
> > Aristarchus of Samos wrote about a heliocentric system almost 2000 years
before Copernicus.
> >
> > And look at the history of denistry (8000BC Pakistan), orthodontics (3000BC
Egypt), domestication of pets, hybridization of plants, brain surgery, etc. etc.
- all things that were lost for thousands of years before being "invented".
There are hundreds more.
> >
> > The ancient world was doing some rather amazing things but most of it was
lost well prior to or during the Dark Ages. Things seem to go backwards for
thousands of years. That is a fact.
> >
> > The Ancients themselves through numerous myth and folklore hint at a long
lost higher age - (over 30 unrelated ancient cultures spoke of it according to
Giorgio deSantillana, former professor of history of science at MIT). Gobekli
Tepe and Nabta Playa fit the myth and folklore  - and they fit the
archaeological pattern - that is a fact.
> >
> > Walter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In LexiLine@yahoogroups.com, "earlofeden12" <a1ndiskaulins@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Polestar 1,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your comment.
> > >
> > > Are you familiar with the supposed "evidence" from this region?
> > >
> > > Take a look at the article Upper Mesopotamia (SE TURKEY, N SYRIA and N
> > > IRAQ) 10,000 - 5000 cal BC by Damien Bischoff with the
> > > collaboration of Agathe Reingruber and Laurens Thissen (last update 12
> > > February 2006) at
> > > http://www.canew.org/files/CANeW%20Upper%20Mesopotamia%20C14%20dbase%20%\
> > > 28February%202006%29.pdf
> > > <http://www.canew.org/files/CANeW%20Upper%20Mesopotamia%20C14%20dbase%20\
> > > %28February%202006%29.pdf>   where Bischoff writes, for example:
> > > "Comment CAFER H�Y�K
> > > Most complete sequence in the East area (50 m2), yielding 13 levels with
> > > a total depth of 6 m over virgin soil; the occupation is reported to be
> > > continuous (Cauvin
> > > et al. 1999, 89). In the West area only the Late Phase has been
> > > uncovered. Sample Ly-3773 from the Middle Phase is reported to
> > > lack sufficient carbon (o.c., 94). Samples Ly-2523 and
> > > Ly-2522, both from the West area, might stem from the
> > > `numerous fragments of charcoal� - or
> > > `carbonised wood� as they are described further on
> > > - associated with structures 18, 19 and 8 of Level IVc, which,
> > > incidentally, is destroyed by fire (o.c., 95, 96). Would these have been
> > > the remains of the wooden ceiling beams, as seems suggested? If so, is
> > > it warranted to hypothesize similar samples for the earlier phases as
> > > well? Most of the wood used at Cafer seems to have been salix and
> > > populus growing along the Degirmendere stream (Willcox 1991). The
> > > `old-wood� problem seems to have been not an issue here,
> > > for explaining the big discrepancies within the Cafer 14C dates corpus."
> > > A specific study of Gobekli Tepe has been made via pedogenic carbonate
> > > coatings on the stones found there: Evidence for Holocene environmental
> > > changes in the northern Fertile Crescent provided by pedogenic carbonate
> > > coatings, as authored by Konstantin PUSTOVOYTOV, Klaus SCHMIDT  and
> > > Heinrich TAUBALD. The work is abstracted online at cat.inist.fr
> > > (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18698456
> > > <http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18698456>  ):
> > > "Holocene environmental changes in the northern Fertile Crescent remain
> > > poorly understood because of the scarcity of local proxy records in the
> > > region. In this study we investigated pedogenic (soil-formed) carbonate
> > > coatings on stones at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic site G�bekli Tepe as
> > > an indicator of local early-mid Holocene environmental changes. The 14C
> > > ages and stable isotopic composition of carbon and oxygen in thin
> > > (0.2-0.3 mm thick) pedogenic carbonate lamina indicate two main periods
> > > of coating formation: the early-Holocene (ca. 10000-6000 cal yr BP) and
> > > the mid-Holocene (ca. 6000-4000 cal yr BP). During the first period,
> > > there was an inverse relationship between δ13C and δ18O curves:
> > > a decrease in δ13C values coincide with an increase in δ18O
> > > values. For this period a trend towards higher temperatures is
> > > suggested. In the mid-Holocene, the mean rate of coating growth was 2-3
> > > times higher than in the early Holocene. Both δ13C and δ18O
> > > reached their maximum values during this time and the direction of
> > > changes of the δ13C and δ18O curves became similar. The
> > > combination of data suggests that this period was the most humid in the
> > > Holocene and on average warmer than the early Holocene. At ca. 4000 cal
> > > yr BP secondary accumulation of carbonate ceased, presumably reflecting
> > > a shift to a more arid climate."
> > >
> > > Essentially, this kind of dating is a scientific free-for-all where the
> > > data says what the authors want the data to say. The amount of coating
> > > on the stones is said to vary by climate epoch and variation is
> > > explained away by higher temperatures and humidity - whatever is needed
> > > to get the dates to fit. NO accumulation at all of carbonate is then
> > > presumed starting ca. 4000 BP, "presumably reflecting a shift to a more
> > > arid climate", for stones buried underground. But if carbonate in fact
> > > DID accumulate until clear up to the present time - which is the
> > > solution that apears most exact to us, also after 4000 BP, i.e. for 6000
> > > years up to their excavation in the present era, then the stones have in
> > > fact been dated 6000 years too old - and that gives us the accurate date
> > > of the construction of Gobekli Tepe at ca. 4000 to 3000 B.C., which I am
> > > quite sure by my astronomical assessment of the megaliths to be the
> > > correct date.
> > >
> > > By "conflagrations" previously I meant for example things like much
> > > older forest or brush fires for example that burned the wood used for
> > > radiocarbon dating. The ancient dating of Anatolia is based mostly on
> > > charcoal, what is called "carbonized wood". There are many problems
> > > involved in assigning that wood's actual origin to the period in which
> > > structures were constructed because it is not even known to what use
> > > carbonized wood was put. It stems mainly from ancient fruit and nut
> > > trees.
> > >
> > > The unreliability of Anatolian tree dating in principle is discussed at
> > > length e.g. in Anatolian tree-ring studies are untrustworthy by Douglas
> > > J. Keenan, The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, United Kingdom;
> > > doug.keenan@, 22 February 2006, online at
> > > http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a.pdf
> > > <http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a.pdf>   where Keenan writes:
> > > "The chronology of the Ancient Near East is poorly understood. Although
> > > many references give exact dates for events, such as the building of the
> > > Great Pyramid or the rise of certain kings in Babylon, in reality such
> > > dates are debated. Wood has the potential to resolve such debates. Many
> > > ancient buildings and other artefacts were
> > > constructed from wood, and in some circumstances, it is possible to
> > > precisely date this wood, by examining the pattern of its tree rings.
> > > Work on dating wood from the Ancient Near East has been done primarily
> > > in Anatolia (roughly, modern Turkey). This work has been conducted over
> > > many years and been published in respected journals; it has claimed to
> > > provide definitive dates for several important events in the early
> > > history of civilisation. Herein is reviewed some of this wood-dating
> > > research. The primary conclusion is that the research has invalidating
> > > flaws, which are obvious upon inspection. The underlying issue is that
> > > the system under which tree-ring research generally is conducted lacks
> > > transparency....
> > >
> > > During ancient times, wood was often reused. For example, an
> > > investigation of the remains of a Middle Bronze Age building, which
> > > comprised 26 timbers, concluded that all the timbers had been reused
> > > from some Early Bronze Age structure-dated several centuries
> > > earlier [Kuniholm, 1994]. In fact, similar reuse of wood still occurs in
> > > modern times: for example, the investigators have concluded that the
> > > joist in a modern Turkish house is over 6000 years old [Kuniholm, 2001].
> > > Thus, when a tree is recovered from an archaeological site, it cannot be
> > > known a priori in which millennium the tree grew....
> > >
> > > [footnote 11 provides as follows] Detailed information has also been
> > > published for the site of K�ltepe [Kuniholm & Newton, 1989; Newton,
> > > 2004: app.2]. The investigators, however, no longer claim to have a date
> > > for this site that is near reliable; for example, Newton & Kuniholm
> > > [2004] say that the date "should be thought of as tentative,
> > > subject to ... modification"-indeed, their t-score is
> > > only 4.1. (The tentative match is actually just the best that could be
> > > found within the date range allowed by radiocarbon ages: this is not a
> > > valid basis for dating ...  furthermore, the radiocarbon ages are
> > > internally inconsistent and are unlikely to have the accuracy assumed.
> > > Keenan concludes that the whole historical dating game is:
> > > "a system in which investigators can claim any plausible results and are
> > > accountable to no one.
> > > That is also my opinion. It is a  pea and shell game by mainstream
> > > archaeology. See my postings about archaeology and "evidence" at "Law
> > > and Science <http://www.lawpundit.com/blog/2005/12/law-and-science.htm>
> > > ".
> > >
> > > My critique of current Anatolian dating has nothing to do with Biblical
> > > dates, as you seem to suggest. What it does have to do with is the fact
> > > that smoothly carved or cut pillars such as found at Gobekli Tepe do not
> > > surface 10000 years ago - and then we never hear of this technology
> > > again until this same technology surfaces about 3000 B.C. in places like
> > > Egypt. Technology transfer does not work way. Once a technology has been
> > > perfected, it is used further and in other places - it does not simply
> > > disappear for millennia. One of the main pieces of evidence proving that
> > > the Anatolian chronology is faulty is the fact that  it forces us to
> > > assume a break of many thousands of years between the first emergence of
> > > the Gobekli Tepe technology and the surfacing of that technology later
> > > elsewhere. Sorry. That is NOT believable. When the chronology is
> > > ACCURATE, there will be a clear continuity of technology.
> > >
> > > You write that Gobekli Tepe and Nabta Playa are evidence that fit. WHAT
> > > EVIDENCE? I have told you that the Nabta Playa evidence is taken from
> > > ancient oasis campfires somewhat removed from the precise megalithic
> > > lcoation at the oasis that have NOTHING to do with the megaliths found
> > > there and that radiocarbon dating from a campfire right at those stones
> > > dates from ca. 3000 BC. The archaeologists chose the older dating
> > > because its suits their purposes. You can "believe" whatever you want,
> > > but that is NOT science. Archaeologists "want" Nabta Playo to be older
> > > because it makes them famous. But that has nothing to do with true
> > > history. And the same is true for Anatolia.
> > >
> > > EVIDENCE? There are lots of problems with the subjective treatment of
> > > the evidence by the mainstream archaeologists in these regions.
> > >
> > > Enjoy,
> > >
> > > Andis
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In LexiLine@yahoogroups.com, "polestar101" <wispr2m@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Conflagration?? We agree the Amorites did not build the site because
> > > it far predates them (and therefore has nothing to do with their lack of
> > > wheat??). But why do you consider the dating "absurdly old"? All over
> > > the world archaeologists are pushing back the clock with new
> > > discoveries. Gobekli Tepe and Nabta Playa are evidence that fit. We no
> > > longer have to fit civilization into a Biblical 6000 year limitation.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In LexiLine@yahoogroups.com, "earlofeden12" a1ndiskaulins@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Polestar1,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for your excellent comment. I have pre-answered many of
> > > your
> > > > > questions previously in my German-language article Das Tanum System
> > > -
> > > > > ein alteurop�isch-afrikanisches Vermessungssystem at
> > > > >
> > > http://www.scribd.com/doc/12402525/Das-Tanum-System-ein-alteuropaischafr\
> > > \
> > > > > ikanisches-Vermessungssystem-DOC
> > > > >
> > > <http://www.scribd.com/doc/12402525/Das-Tanum-System-ein-alteuropaischaf\
> > > \
> > > > > rikanisches-Vermessungssystem-DOC>   and due to your comment I am
> > > right
> > > > > now working to put that into English as soon as I can since a German
> > > > > version is not of much use to you or most of our audience here at
> > > > > LexiLine. Still, if you examine the German version - many graphics -
> > > you
> > > > > will get more information about my reasons.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are however many, many other reasons for my challenging the
> > > > > radiocarbon dating of Gobekli Tepe (and affiliated sites) and of
> > > Nabta
> > > > > Playa.
> > > > >
> > > > > You might want to read  the following material which I quote from
> > > the
> > > > > Wikipedia article on AMORITE at
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorite
> > > > > which shows that as late as the 3rd Millennium, the approximate
> > > highland
> > > > > area in question for Gobekli Tepe and surroundings was predominantly
> > > > > occupied by highland people who knew no grain and whose culture was
> > > at
> > > > > the lowest level. The mainstream archaeologists use the absurd
> > > argument
> > > > > that since no grain was found at Gobekli Tepe, then it must predate
> > > the
> > > > > origins of agriculture. But the Amorite data tells us that their
> > > > > primitive state of culture prevailed in this general region until
> > > much,
> > > > > MUCH later.
> > > > >
> > > > > Let me tell you one thing - there are many in mainstream archaeology
> > > who
> > > > > are superb con-men who are conning a great number of their fellows
> > > and
> > > > > laymen - I would call these the "chumps" or "suckers" - into
> > > thinking
> > > > > that their digs in Anatolia involve the real, real origins of
> > > culture at
> > > > > some absurdly old date. That is just a bunch of hokum based on some
> > > very
> > > > > sparse carbon dating of charcoal in that area which might just as
> > > well
> > > > > stem from some ancient natural fiery conflagration.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just read the Wikipedia material:
> > > > >
> > > > > "In the earliest Sumerian sources, beginning about 2400 BC, the land
> > > of
> > > > > the Amorites ("the Mar.tu land") is associated with the West,
> > > including
> > > > > Syria and Canaan, although their ultimate origin may have been
> > > Arabia.
> > > > > They appear as nomadic people in the Mesopotamian sources, and they
> > > are
> > > > > especially connected with the mountainous region of Jebel Bishri in
> > > > > Syria called as the "mountain of the Amorites". The ethnic terms
> > > Amurru
> > > > > and Amar were used for them in Assyria and Egypt respectively....
> > > > >
> > > > > In early inscriptions, all western lands, including Syria and
> > > Canaan,
> > > > > were known as "the land of the Amorites". "The MAR.TU land" appears
> > > in
> > > > > the earliest Sumerian texts, such as Enmerkar and the Lord of
> > > Aratta, as
> > > > > well as early tablets from Ebla; and for the Akkadian kings Mar.tu
> > > was
> > > > > one of the "Four Quarters" surrounding Akkad, along with Subartu,
> > > Sumer
> > > > > and Elam. The Akkadian king Naram-Sin records campaigns against them
> > > in
> > > > > northern Syria ca. 2240 BC, and his successor Shar-Kali-Sharri
> > > followed
> > > > > suit.
> > > > >
> > > > > By the time of the Neo-Sumerian Ur-III empire, immigrating Amorites
> > > had
> > > > > become such a force that kings such as Shu-Sin were obliged to
> > > construct
> > > > > a 170 mile wall from the Tigris to the Euphrates to hold them off
> > > [3].
> > > > > These Amorites appear as nomadic clans ruled by fierce tribal
> > > chiefs,
> > > > > who forced themselves into lands they needed to graze their herds.
> > > Some
> > > > > of the Akkadian literature of this era speaks disparagingly of the
> > > > > Amorites, and implies that the neo-Sumerians viewed their nomadic
> > > way of
> > > > > life with disgust and contempt, for example:
> > > > >
> > > > > "The MAR.TU who know no grain.... The MAR.TU who know no house nor
> > > town,
> > > > > the boors of the mountains.... The MAR.TU who digs up truffles...
> > > who
> > > > > does not bend his knees (to cultivate the land), who eats raw meat,
> > > who
> > > > > has no house during his lifetime, who is not buried after
> > > death...[4]
> > > > >
> > > > > They have prepared wheat and g�-nunuz (grain) as a confection,
> > > but
> > > > > an Amorite will eat it without even recognizing what it contains![5]
> > > "
> > > > >
> > > > > These were the people who inhabited most of the highlands of
> > > Anatolia,
> > > > > clear down to the days of written history. Of course, they did not
> > > build
> > > > > the Temple of Gobekli Tepe, but their fierce primitive presence was
> > > > > surely the reason that the people who DID build Gobekli Tepe left
> > > the
> > > > > region and covered their Temple under a mountain of earth as they
> > > left
> > > > > the region and moved southward to ultimately found Pharaonic
> > > > > civilization.
> > > > >
> > > > > I will post my English version of the Tanum System soon - for there
> > > is
> > > > > much, much more to be said.
> > > > >
> > > > > Enjoy,
> > > > >
> > > > > Andis
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In LexiLine@yahoogroups.com, "polestar101" <wispr2m@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Andis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Saw your mention of faulty radiocarbon dating for Gobekli Tepe and
> > > > > also noticed that you challenged the dating of Nabta Playa. In both
> > > > > cases you chopped many thousands of years off the accepted dating
> > > > > according to mainstream archaeologists.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you generally of the opinion that mankind lacked the ability
> > > to
> > > > > create megalithic structures or stone arrangements in stellar
> > > alignment
> > > > > as early as 10,000 BC? Or is it just that these two cases are
> > > > > questionable in your mind and otherwise mankind was capable of such
> > > > > activities in 10,000BC? Just curious why you appear to filter out
> > > the
> > > > > earliest dating?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Open Minded
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Polestar101
> > > > > >
> > > > > > truncated...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dear LexiLiners,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am still working on my formal write-up of my Gobekli Tepe
> > > > > > > decipherment
> > > > > > > > which will show that Göbekli Tepe is astronomical in
> > > nature
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > oriented to the stars ca. 3800 B.C. I conclude that this
> > > location
> > > > > near
> > > > > > > > Urfa is where the Hebrew Calendar began.  Gobekli Tepe is only
> > > 12
> > > > > > > > kilometers (about 7.5 miles) from Urfa (currently called
> > > Sanliurfa
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > > Edessa), the legendary birthplace of the Biblical Abraham, and
> > > > > only 38
> > > > > > > > kilometers (23.75 miles) from his later residence at Haran.
> > > (see
> > > > > Am
> > > > > > > > Anfang war Anatolien)
> > > > > > > <http://www.aero-durit.de/downloads/Anatolien.pdf>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I initially dated the installation of the standing stones by
> > > what
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > deciphered to be the relief depiction of the appearance of
> > > > > Halley's
> > > > > > > > Comet on one of the stones, which by its location on that
> > > stone
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > be ca. 3800 B.C.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The date assigned to these megaliths (allegedly 11000 years
> > > old)
> > > > > by
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > mainstream archaeologists is woefully wrong and based on the
> > > > > wishful
> > > > > > > > thinking of mainstream archaeologists generally in search of
> > > fame
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > fortune who always seem to find "an older yet" archaeological
> > > > > site,
> > > > > > > i.e.
> > > > > > > > it is a self-fulfilling prophecy which subliminally creeps
> > > into
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > dating process and skews the accurate interpretation of the
> > > data.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The  faulty chronological assessment of Gobekli Tepe is based
> > > on
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > questionable radiocarbon dating and equally gullible
> > > comparative
> > > > > > > dating
> > > > > > > > of stone tools found at or near the site similar to other
> > > falsely
> > > > > > > dated
> > > > > > > > stone tools found at another site - chronological devices
> > > which
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > simply fantasy stretches at best. Because no pots or grains
> > > have
> > > > > been
> > > > > > > > found at the site, it is illogically presumed to predate their
> > > > > > > > development - sort of like finding a modern ruin in Death
> > > Valley -
> > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > also no pots or grains will be found.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As correctly written online by Omar W. Rosales in a comment at
> > > the
> > > > > > > > Smithsonian Magazine online:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > <http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "... you still need independent verification of the age of the
> > > > > burial
> > > > > > > > site. It mentions that stone implements (whether they are
> > > flint,
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > > knives, or whatever) resemble those found in another site,
> > > where
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > artifacts in the other site radiocarbon date to 11000 B.C.
> > > Okay,
> > > > > so
> > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > does prove that Gobekli Tepe dates around 11000 B.C.? If there
> > > are
> > > > > > > wood
> > > > > > > > fragments, pottery shards, or some other type of carbon-based
> > > item
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > Gobekli, then test these to establish the date. Although
> > > > > undiscovered
> > > > > > > > sites with monumental architecture probably pre-date our
> > > > > discovered
> > > > > > > (and
> > > > > > > > well-known) archaeological sites, you still need to
> > > independently
> > > > > > > verify
> > > > > > > > the dates. - Omar W. Rosales J.D.
> > > http://www.elementalshaman.com
> > > > > > > > Posted by Omar W. Rosales on October 24,2008 | 03:15PM"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Equally unconvincing is the radiocarbon analysis of organic
> > > > > materials
> > > > > > > > found at the site, based on a very questionable find which
> > > alleges
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > "old" organic material has been found adhering to the stones.
> > > > > Since
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > stones were purposefully buried - i.e. covered with earth from
> > > the
> > > > > > > > surrounding region, any age is possible by radiocarbon
> > > analysis
> > > > > > > > depending on what organic materials were resident in the earth
> > > > > used to
> > > > > > > > cover up the stones, or indeed, into which the stones were
> > > > > originally
> > > > > > > > placed. That evidence can not be used to date the megalithic
> > > site.
> > > > > A
> > > > > > > > similar error has been made in Egypt in dating Nabta Playa to
> > > be
> > > > > far
> > > > > > > > older than it actually is, since the radiocarbon evidence
> > > directly
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > the stones correctly in fact dates them to ca. 3000 B.C.
> > > rather
> > > > > than
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > thousands of years earlier which the archaeologists
> > > intentionally
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > totally erroneously preferred to choose. The archaeologists at
> > > > > Nabta
> > > > > > > > Playa in Egypt then took the radiocarbon dating from more
> > > > > distantly
> > > > > > > > removed ancient hearths at the oasis because they gave an
> > > older
> > > > > date -
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > date which has nothing, however, to do with the Nabta Playa
> > > > > megaliths,
> > > > > > > > which date by my research to ca. 3000 BC.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In fact the German Archaeological Institute (Deutsches
> > > > > > > > Archäologisches Institut) itself writes at its Göbekli
> > > > > Tepe
> > > > > > > > website
> > > > > <http://www.dainst.org/index.php?id=642&sessionLanguage=en>  :
> > > > > > > > "As early as 1963 Göbekli Tepe had been pinpointed as an
> > > > > > > > archaeological site in the course of a Turkish-American
> > > survey,
> > > > > and in
> > > > > > > > 1980 appeared Peter Benedict's report on the mound. The full
> > > > > > > > significance of the site, however, was not yet apparent. The
> > > > > flanks of
> > > > > > > > the rise, strewn with large cut blocks of masonry as well as
> > > > > countless
> > > > > > > > implements of chipped stone, certainly did not bring to mind
> > > an
> > > > > > > > establishment from mankind's earliest period of settlement,
> > > i.e.
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > the time the Paleolithic/Mesolithic hunters were first
> > > shifting to
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > sedentary life of farming."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Indeed, simple logic suggests that the current mainsteam
> > > dating of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > Göbekli Tepe megaliths is far off the mark, since it would
> > > > > presume
> > > > > > > > that the ancients possessed a stone technology 10000 years ago
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > > then simply vanished from the face of the earth for thousands
> > > of
> > > > > > > years.
> > > > > > > > Any time that there is not a believable cohesive chronological
> > > > > stream
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > evidence for any given technology over time, irrationally
> > > ancient
> > > > > > > dating
> > > > > > > > given to that technology by the sensation-hungry mainstream
> > > > > > > > archaeologists can be presumed to be totally faulty. It seems
> > > > > every
> > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > find made today is the oldest and the best - the reality of
> > > course
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > otherwise. As written by Alex Hunger at megalithic.co.uk
> > > > > > > > <http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=14968>  : "One is
> > > > > > > reminded,
> > > > > > > > to some extent of the temples in Malta, which were built 5,000
> > > > > years
> > > > > > > > later. " The observation is correct - the Malta Temples show
> > > > > > > > similarities - only it was NOT 5000 years later.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In the interim Gwynneth Anderson has a standard-type posting
> > > at
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > Examiner titled
> > > > > > > > Göbekli Tepe: Standing stones from humanity�'s oldest
> > > > > temple
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > <http://www.examiner.com/x-11199-Archeological-Travel-Examiner%7Ey2009m8\
> > > \
> > > > > \
> > > > > > > \
> > > > > > > > d3-Gobekli-Tepe-Standing-stones-from-humanitys-oldest-temple>
> > > -
> > > > > > > > including a YouTube video (the chanting music may not be
> > > > > everyone's
> > > > > > > > taste), but the archaeologists have no insight as to the
> > > purpose
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > megalithic site, as might be expected. Really, they have no
> > > clue.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There are now several Gobekli Tepe videos availabe on YouTube:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFgcmXRHcLU&feature=related
> > > > > > > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFgcmXRHcLU&feature=related>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XqfjWCUgfk
> > > > > > > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XqfjWCUgfk>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmSIG4qV2Sg&feature=related
> > > > > > > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmSIG4qV2Sg&feature=related>
> > > (in
> > > > > > > > German language - Göbekli Tepe Stelenscan)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Göbekli Tepe I <G%C3%B6bekli%20Tepe%20I>   (in German)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Göbekli Tepe II
> > > > > > > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU2qwoMfq-U&feature=related>
> > > (in
> > > > > > > > German)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Göbekli Tepe Official Website (very poor)
> > > > > > > > Deutsches Archäologisches Institut
> > > > > > > > <http://www.dainst.org/index.php?id=642&sessionLanguage=en>
> > > > > > > (official
> > > > > > > > Göbekli Tepe  site of the German Archaeological Institute)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,452365,00.html?sPage=fnc/scitech/ar\
> > > \
> > > > > \
> > > > > > > \
> > > > > > > > chaeology/>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have ordered Klaus Schmidt's book (only available in German)
> > > and
> > > > > > > hope
> > > > > > > > it is better than the dearth of quality information available
> > > > > online:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sie bauten die ersten Tempel: Das rätselhafte Heiligtum
> > > der
> > > > > > > > Steinzeitjäger
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > <http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2F\
> > > \
> > > > > \
> > > > > > > \
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > www.amazon.de%2FSie-bauten-ersten-Tempel-Steinzeitj%25C3%25A4ger%2Fdp%2F\
> > > \
> > > > > \
> > > > > > > \
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > 3406535003&ei=UJqBSoiLFo2LsAaKiqzNCQ&usg=AFQjCNEVuxiC-GxrRhcavhyz3OE58YG\
> > > \
> > > > > \
> > > > > > > \
> > > > > > > > 2Ag&sig2=rVCsa9e89tuova-1064D2Q>   (Gebundene Ausgabe)
> > > > > > > > von Klaus Schmidt (Autor)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Enjoy,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Andis"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Andis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

From: a1ndiskaulins@... <a1ndiskaulins@...>
Subject: Re: 12 LexiLine 2009 Gobekli Tepe Decipherment Dating Exhibition & Videos
To: talon_eye@...
Date: Saturday, September 12, 2009, 9:02 AM

Thank you, Omar, for your information.
Can I put up the content of your email on the LexiLine group at Yahoo?

...

Andis

-----Original Message-----
From: Talon_Eye <talon_eye@...>
To: LexiLine-owner@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, Aug 24, 2009 11:52 pm
Subject: Re: 12 LexiLine 2009 Gobekli Tepe Decipherment Dating Exhibition & Videos

Hey there Andis,



 Great write-up! I totally agree, there are very mysterious items in 

Archaeology, but there's also alot of fiction.



 Another example of an improper or constructed artifact are the Crystal 

Skulls. Many have claimed that these objects were sacred Maya artifacts, but 

thats not true at all.



 In the late 19th Century, an Austrian glass-cutter was commissioned to make 

these exquisite works of art, in a design similar to a MesoAmerican motif. The 

skulls are beautiful works of art, but they are just that, art.



 From an Archaeo-religious prospective, Maya rulers would not have the
 

technology to make such an item, moreover in a ritual context, the skull would 

be too sacred an item to possess, perhaps even competing with the King for the 

symbolic Power over the Maya
 populace.



 It comes back to research. We must research the sites, we must research 

the artifacts. There's nothing wrong with exciting discoveries, but we must not 

forget the "facts" in ARTIFACTS.





Thanks,

- Omar W. Rosales, J.D.

http://www.elementalshaman.com





--- In LexiLine@yahoogroups.com, "Andis Kaulins" <a1ndiskaulins@...> wrote:

>

> 12 LexiLine Newsletter 2009 Gobekli Tepe Decipherment Dating Exhibition

> & Videos

> 

> Dear LexiLiners,

> 

> I am still working on my formal write-up of my Gobekli Tepe decipherment

> which will show that Göbekli Tepe is astronomical in nature and

> oriented to the stars ca. 3800 B.C. I conclude that this location near

> Urfa is where the Hebrew Calendar began. Gobekli
 Tepe is only 12

> kilometers (about 7.5 miles) from Urfa (currently called Sanliurfa or

> Edessa), the legendary birthplace of the Biblical Abraham, and only 38

> kilometers (23.75 miles) from his later residence at Haran. (see Am

> Anfang war Anatolien) <http://www.aero-durit.de/downloads/Anatolien.pdf>

> 

> I initially dated the installation of the standing stones by what I have

> deciphered to be the relief depiction of the appearance of Halley's

> Comet on one of the stones, which by its location on that stone can only

> be ca. 3800 B.C.

> 

> The date assigned to these megaliths (allegedly 11000 years old) by the

> mainstream archaeologists is woefully wrong and based on the wishful

> thinking of mainstream archaeologists generally in search of fame and

> fortune who always seem to
 find "an older yet" archaeological site, i.e.

> it is a self-fulfilling prophecy which subliminally creeps into the

> dating process and skews the accurate interpretation of the data.

> 

> The faulty chronological assessment of Gobekli Tepe is based on some

> questionable radiocarbon dating and equally gullible comparative dating

> of stone tools found at or near the site similar to other falsely dated

> stone tools found at another site - chronological devices which are

> simply fantasy stretches at best. Because no pots or grains have been

> found at the site, it is illogically presumed to predate their

> development - sort of like finding a modern ruin in Death Valley - where

> also no pots or grains will be found.

> 

> As correctly written online by Omar W. Rosales in a comment at the

> Smithsonian Magazine
 online:
0A> <http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html>

> 

> "... you still need independent verification of the age of the burial

> site. It mentions that stone implements (whether they are flint, or

> knives, or whatever) resemble those found in another site, where the

> artifacts in the other site radiocarbon date to 11000 B.C. Okay, so how

> does prove that Gobekli Tepe dates around 11000 B.C.? If there are wood

> fragments, pottery shards, or some other type of carbon-based item at

> Gobekli, then test these to establish the date. Although undiscovered

> sites with monumental architecture probably pre-date our discovered (and

> well-known) archaeological sites, you still need to independently verify

> the dates. - Omar W. Rosales J.D. http://www.elementalshaman.com

> Posted by Omar W. Rosales on October 24,2008 | 03:15PM"

> 

> Equally unconvincing is the radiocarbon analysis of organic materials

> found at the site, based on a very questionable find which alleges that

> "old" organic material has been found adhering to the stones. Since the

> stones were purposefully buried - i.e. covered with earth from the

> surrounding region, any age is possible by radiocarbon analysis

> depending on what organic materials were resident in th
e earth used to

> cover up the stones, or indeed, into which the stones were originally

> placed. That evidence can not be used to date the megalithic site. A

> similar error has been made in Egypt in dating Nabta Playa to be far

> older than it actually is, since the radiocarbon evidence directly at

> the
 stones correctly in fact dates them to ca. 3000 B.C. rather than the

> thousands of years earlier which the archaeologists intentionally and

> totally erroneously preferred to choose. The archaeologists at Nabta

> Playa in Egypt then took the radiocarbon dating from more distantly

> removed ancient hearths at the oasis because they gave an older date - a

> date which has nothing, however, to do with the Nabta Playa megaliths,

> which date by my research to ca. 3000 BC.

> 

> 

> In fact the German Archaeological Institute (Deutsches

> Archäologisches Institut) itself writes at its Göbekli Tepe

> website <http://www.dainst.org/index.php?id=642&sessionLanguage=en> :

> "As early as 1963 Göbekli Tepe had been pinpointed as an

> archaeological site in the course of a Turkish-American survey,
 and in

> 1980 appeared Peter Benedict's report on the mound. The full

> significance of the site, however, was not yet apparent. The flanks of

> the rise, strewn with large20cut blocks of masonry as well as countless

> implements of chipped stone, certainly did not bring to mind an

> establishment from mankind's earliest period of settlement, i.e. from

> the time the Paleolithic/Mesolithic hunters were first shifting to a

> sedentary life of farming."

> 

> 

> Indeed, simple logic suggests that the current mainsteam dating of the

> Göbekli Tepe megaliths is far off the mark, since it would presume

> that the ancients possessed a stone technology 10000 years ago which

> then simply vanished from the face of the earth for thousands of years.

> Any time that there is not a believable cohesive chronological stream
 of

> evidence for any given technology over time, irrationally ancient dating

> given to that technology by the sensation-hungry mainstream

> archaeologists can be presumed to be totally faulty. It seems every new

> find made today is the oldest and the best - the reality of course is

> otherwise. As written by Alex Hunger at megalithic.co.uk

> <http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=14968> : "One is reminded,

> to some extent of the temples in Malta, which were built 5,000 years

> later. " The observation is correct - the Malta Temples show

> similarities - only it was NOT 5000 years later.

> 

> 

> 

> In the interim Gwynneth An
derson has a standard-type posting at the

> Examiner titled

> Göbekli Tepe: Standing stones from humanity�'s oldest temple

>
 <http://www.examiner.com/x-11199-Archeological-Travel-Examiner%7Ey2009m8\
 > d3-Gobekli-Tepe-Standing-stones-from-humanitys-oldest-temple> -
 > including a YouTube video (the chanting music may not be everyone's
 > taste), but the archaeologists have no insight as to the purpose of this
 > megalithic site, as might be expected. Really, they have no clue.
 > 
 > There are now several Gobekli Tepe videos availabe on YouTube:
 > 
 > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFgcmXRHcLU&feature=related
 > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFgcmXRHcLU&feature=related>
 > 
 > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XqfjWCUgfk
 > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XqfjWCUgfk>
 > 
 > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmSIG4qV2Sg&feature=related
 > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmSIG4qV2Sg&feature=related> (in
 > German language - Göbekli Tepe Stelenscan)
 > 
 > Göbekli Tepe I <G%C3%B6bekli%20Tepe%20I> (in German)
 > 
 > Göbekli Tepe II
 > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU2qwoMfq-U&feature=related> (in
 > German)
 > 
 > Göbekli Tepe Official Website (very poor)
 > Deutsches Archäologisches Institut
 > <http://www.dainst.org/index.php?id=642&sessionLanguage=en> (official
 > Göbekli Tepe site of the German Archaeological Institute)
 > 
 > <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,452365,00.html?sPage=fnc/scitech/ar\

> chaeology/>

> 

> I have
 ordered Klaus Schmidt's book (only available in German) and hope

> it is better than the dearth of quality information available online:

> 

> Sie bauten die ersten Tempel: Das rätselhafte Heiligtum der

> Steinzeitjäger

> <http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A% 2F%2F\
 > www.amazon.de%2FSie-bauten-ersten-Tempel-Steinzeitj%25C3%25A4ger%2Fdp%2F\

> 3406535003&ei=UJqBSoiLFo2LsAaKiqzNCQ&usg=AFQjCNEVuxiC-GxrRhcavhyz3OE58YG\

> 2Ag&sig2=rVCsa9e89tuova-1064D2Q> (Gebundene Ausgabe)

> von Klaus Schmidt (Autor)

> 

> Enjoy,

> 

> Andis

>

Dear Andis & LexiLine group,
   Thank you for the nice responses to my post from August 11th. Here is a
shorter version of that same info but with an update!
   David Rohl's special TV program 'Pharaohs & Kings: A Biblical Quest' was
released again last September, but with only a few copies.
  You can order both 'Pharaohs & Kings' and the David Rohl 'Myth or Reality'
seminar (shot in Florida) here:
   http://stretchproductions.com/RohlProducts.html
   David Rohl video SAMPLES in the center of the page:
http://www.youtube.com/StretchProductions
  (Also, if you order one of these DVDs, there is a special 3rd DVD
available on 'Eden' - just write to me and ask me about it, at stretch @
swbell.net)
   Also, we are hearing that many of the advanced (older) homeschoolers are
enjoying David's DVDs as a nice addition to their history curriculum.
   And, the big update is that we now have a goal to try and get David Rohl back
over to the USA to do another speaking engagement (or two!), and we will make
new DVDs at that time. David's schedule stays booked months in advance, so we
are likely looking at 2011 or 2012. I am looking for venues. If you are
connected to a church or school (or museum?) who is interested, please let me
know off-list. The venue will receive a nice 'advertisement' in the credit roll
of course!
   Thanks so much Andis & group,
-Cami McCraw

No Doomsday in 2012

“From: Pierre NICOLAS

Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 2:44 PM

To: Andis Kaulins

Subject: Public comment needed about Lascaux's rhinoceros in the Scene of the Dead Man

Hi Andis,

I recently read an interesting paper you wrote about the Nebra celestial disk.

It led me to have a look on Internet about you.

There I discovered the following page http://rupestres.perso.neuf.fr/page156/files/94725b7dc71194f50d9f0d331a9eceac-24.html 

Published in March 2007, it shows that your interpretation (published in Stars, Stones and Scholars) of the Scene of the Dead Man in Lascaux is based either on a bad photograph and/or an oversimplified drawing. The rhinoceros is read by you as three separate figures, when good coloured pictures clearly show a realistic drawing of a well known animal.

I believe you’re aware of that as the only links to Lascaux available on your site (as far as I know) are to the official site.

I understand you deal with (hundreds of) thousands of prehistoric data and this is just one of them.

However, I believe such a “detail”, once it is public, may harm the credibility of the whole.

May I suggest you write something about that? Or has it been corrected in a new version of your book (I have the 2003 hard cover edition)?

And, as an individual, I find useful to have your comment on that point.

Best regards,

Pierre”

Thank you, Pierre!

Pierre notes that a better photograph than the one apparently available to me of Lascaux at the time of my writing of my book suggests that there is one figure instead of three, a figure which some researchers interpret to be a wooly rhinoceros. I am presuming here that original lines in the cave have not been "touched up" by researchers.

I recall having a great deal of trouble interpreting that part of the Cave of the Dead Man at Lascaux because of the sketchy nature of the figure lines still left to us, and I am by no means unhappy with the newer result that these lines represent an animal, since that animal would then correspond to Taurus and more than ever substantiate my decipherment of the Pleiades as the bird and Perseus as the bull as painted in the Lascaux Cave of the Dead Man.

It is of course to be expected that numerous of my identifications of figures on megaliths or on cave and wall paintings are subject to some revision since this is a pioneer field and we are just beginning to appreciate the astronomical nature of these things. My basic decipherment of Lascaux and the Cave of the Dead Man remains - however - unchanged, although some details will have to be adjusted, including my interpretation of some of the figures as being Orion. The better photo shows that this is a long long crevice in the wall and not a figure. What remains fixed in particular is my identification of the bird on the pole as the Pleiades and the bull as Perseus (Latvian versis, "bull").

Living in Germany, where we still have a lot of wild boar (they even come into town here nights and dig up unprotected gardens) I am very unconvinced, by the way, that the apparent figure is a  rhinoceros and would tend toward the view that it is a wild boar viz. a female wild pig, especially because of the tail, which fits a wild boar, but not a rhinoceros. I have found evidence at other megalithic sites that Taurus and the Hyades (the piglets) were represented in megalithic days as a wild pig, e.g. at Ballylowra in County Kilkenny in Ireland (p. 200 of my book at Stars Stones and Scholars ). In my opinion, researchers might subconsciously tend toward an extinct wooly rhinoceros because it is more exciting, but I sincerely doubt it based on the short proportions of the animal at Lascaux (the wooly rhinoceros was 12 feet long on average) and because of its - in my opinion - non-rhinoceros tail.

Enjoy

Andis

Hi Andis � Many years ago I had suggested to my students the remote possibility
that Moses' famous "parting of the sea" might have been due to the explosion on
Thera � so I chuckled when I saw your mention of the possibility. Of course such
a belief requires quite a bit of selective  "mything", and a location other than
the Red Sea (sea of reeds?). If it really happened when Moses raised his hands
and called the Lord � that is one heck of a coincidence! It is easier to believe
that Moses was an avatar that commanded the elements than accept the idea that
his timing was so fortuitous! Just think, if he tried to cross on any other day
there would likely be no Israelites in Palestine today and the whole history of
the Middle East would be different.

--- In LexiLine@yahoogroups.com, "earlofeden12" <a1ndiskaulins@...> wrote:
>
> 16 LexiLine 2009 Santorini Eruption Tsunami and Exodus
>
> Dear LexiLiners,
>
> Below is the Abstract to an article published in the October issue of
> GEOLOGY <http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/37/10/943>  .
> doi: 10.1130/G25704A.1    Geology  October 2009   v. 37  no. 10  p.
> 943-946:
>
> "Tsunami waves generated by the Santorini eruption reached Eastern
> Mediterranean shores
>
>     1. Beverly N. Goodman-Tchernov1,2,
>     2. Hendrik W. Dey3,
>     3. Eduard G. Reinhardt4,
>     4. Floyd McCoy5 and
>     5. Yossi Mart6
>
> + Author Affiliations
>
>     1.
>        1Leon Charney School of Marine Sciences, Haifa University, Haifa,
> Israel
>     2.
>        2Interuniversity Institute for Marine Sciences, Coral Beach,
> Eilat, Israel
>     3.
>        3Department of Art, Hunter College, New York, New York 10065, USA
>     4.
>        4School of Geography and Earth Sciences, McMaster University,
> Hamilton, Ontario ON L8S, Canada
>     5.
>        5Geology and Geophysics, University of Hawaii-Windward, Kaneohe,
> Hawaii 96744, USA, and American School of Classical Studies at Athens,
> Greece
>     6.
>        6Recanati School of Maritime Studies, Haifa University, Haifa,
> Israel
>
> Abstract
>
> A sedimentary deposit on the continental shelf off Caesarea Maritima,
> Israel, is identified, dated, and attributed to tsunami waves produced
> during the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1630�"1550 B.C.E.) eruption of
> Santorini, Greece. The sheet-like deposit was found as a layer as much
> as 40 cm thick in four cores collected from 10 to 20 m water depths.
> Particle-size distribution, planar bedding, shell taphoecoensis, dating
> (radiocarbon, optically stimulated luminescence, and pottery), and
> comparison of the horizon to more recent tsunamigenic layers distinguish
> it from normal storm and typical marine conditions across a wide (>1
> km2) lateral area. The presence of this deposit is evidence that tsunami
> waves from the Santorini eruption radiated throughout the Eastern
> Mediterranean Sea, affecting the coastal people living there. Dates for
> the tsunami deposit bracket both the so-called “high” and
> “low” chronology for the Santorini eruption. In addition
> to resolving the question of the extent of tsunami impact from the
> Santorini eruption, the research presented also provides a new means of
> discovering, identifying, and studying continuous records of
> paleotsunami deposits in the upper shelf coastal environment. The latter
> is key to understanding past events, better interpreting
> sedimentological records, and creating stronger models for understanding
> tsunami propagation, coastal management, and hazard preparation
> worldwide.
>
>      *
>            o Received 25 November 2008."
>            o Revision received 27 May 2009.
>            o Accepted 27 May 2009.
>
>      * © 2009 Geological Society of America"
>
> Obviously, "evidence" of this tsunami would therefore be found in
> ancient sources and the parting of the waves during the Hebrew "Exodus"
> is the most likely candidate.
>
> Enjoy,
>
> Andis
>

There is no doubt that the "sea of reeds" was Fayyum. The idea that the Red Sea
was involved in the Exodus is a "myth" erroneously propounded by clueless
mainstream archaeologists and equally confounded Biblical scholars having zero
idea what they were or are talking about. I wish a gigantic wastebasket existed
into which all of that kind of "Biblical scholarship" could be tossed to free
the world of such nonsense. 99% of what the theologians, religious fanatics and
related disciplines have written about the Bible and similar religious works is
just the worst kind of superstitious, non-critical babble - pure veritably
retarded junk. Those of us who still command our intellect can only look at the
world aghast at the existing religious idiocies, which dominate the daily news.

I am also perplexed as to why people perist on taking Biblical "prophecies" so
literally. It is quite clear throughout the Bible that important events - AFTER
THE FACT OF THEIR OCCURRENCE - were ascribed to prophecies allegedly made prior
to event by sages later trying to obtain maximal personal marketing value out of
the events described. Moroever, many historical events were embellished, as they
still are today, to include natural disasters or other events that happened in
the same or nearly contemporaneous time period. There is a whole field of
cognitive psychology devoted to what man remembers, why and how he does so,
etc., but you can be sure that the word cognition is a foreign concept to most
people in this field.

--- In LexiLine@yahoogroups.com, "polestar101" <wispr2m@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Andis � Many years ago I had suggested to my students the remote
possibility that Moses' famous "parting of the sea" might have been due to the
explosion on Thera � so I chuckled when I saw your mention of the possibility.
Of course such a belief requires quite a bit of selective  "mything", and a
location other than the Red Sea (sea of reeds?). If it really happened when
Moses raised his hands and called the Lord � that is one heck of a
coincidence! It is easier to believe that Moses was an avatar that commanded the
elements than accept the idea that his timing was so fortuitous! Just think, if
he tried to cross on any other day there would likely be no Israelites in
Palestine today and the whole history of the Middle East would be different.
>
> --- In LexiLine@yahoogroups.com, "earlofeden12" <a1ndiskaulins@> wrote:
> >
> > 16 LexiLine 2009 Santorini Eruption Tsunami and Exodus
> >
> > Dear LexiLiners,
> >
> > Below is the Abstract to an article published in the October issue of
> > GEOLOGY <http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/37/10/943>  .
> > doi: 10.1130/G25704A.1    Geology  October 2009   v. 37  no. 10  p.
> > 943-946:
> >
> > "Tsunami waves generated by the Santorini eruption reached Eastern
> > Mediterranean shores
> >
> >     1. Beverly N. Goodman-Tchernov1,2,
> >     2. Hendrik W. Dey3,
> >     3. Eduard G. Reinhardt4,
> >     4. Floyd McCoy5 and
> >     5. Yossi Mart6
> >
> > + Author Affiliations
> >
> >     1.
> >        1Leon Charney School of Marine Sciences, Haifa University, Haifa,
> > Israel
> >     2.
> >        2Interuniversity Institute for Marine Sciences, Coral Beach,
> > Eilat, Israel
> >     3.
> >        3Department of Art, Hunter College, New York, New York 10065, USA
> >     4.
> >        4School of Geography and Earth Sciences, McMaster University,
> > Hamilton, Ontario ON L8S, Canada
> >     5.
> >        5Geology and Geophysics, University of Hawaii-Windward, Kaneohe,
> > Hawaii 96744, USA, and American School of Classical Studies at Athens,
> > Greece
> >     6.
> >        6Recanati School of Maritime Studies, Haifa University, Haifa,
> > Israel
> >
> > Abstract
> >
> > A sedimentary deposit on the continental shelf off Caesarea Maritima,
> > Israel, is identified, dated, and attributed to tsunami waves produced
> > during the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1630�"1550 B.C.E.) eruption of
> > Santorini, Greece. The sheet-like deposit was found as a layer as much
> > as 40 cm thick in four cores collected from 10 to 20 m water depths.
> > Particle-size distribution, planar bedding, shell taphoecoensis, dating
> > (radiocarbon, optically stimulated luminescence, and pottery), and
> > comparison of the horizon to more recent tsunamigenic layers distinguish
> > it from normal storm and typical marine conditions across a wide (>1
> > km2) lateral area. The presence of this deposit is evidence that tsunami
> > waves from the Santorini eruption radiated throughout the Eastern
> > Mediterranean Sea, affecting the coastal people living there. Dates for
> > the tsunami deposit bracket both the so-called “high” and
> > “low” chronology for the Santorini eruption. In addition
> > to resolving the question of the extent of tsunami impact from the
> > Santorini eruption, the research presented also provides a new means of
> > discovering, identifying, and studying continuous records of
> > paleotsunami deposits in the upper shelf coastal environment. The latter
> > is key to understanding past events, better interpreting
> > sedimentological records, and creating stronger models for understanding
> > tsunami propagation, coastal management, and hazard preparation
> > worldwide.
> >
> >      *
> >            o Received 25 November 2008."
> >            o Revision received 27 May 2009.
> >            o Accepted 27 May 2009.
> >
> >      * © 2009 Geological Society of America"
> >
> > Obviously, "evidence" of this tsunami would therefore be found in
> > ancient sources and the parting of the waves during the Hebrew "Exodus"
> > is the most likely candidate.
> >
> > Enjoy,
> >
> > Andis
> >
>

http://pyramids-egypt.blogspot.com/

There is some Yahoo glitsch with the links in the happy thanksgiving posting.
Copy the full link into your browser.

--- In LexiLine@yahoogroups.com, LexiLine-owner@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> Dear LexiLiners:
>
> Happy Thanksgiving to all of you and may your holiday weekend be full of
> cheer.
>
> Take a look at this wonderful page....
>
> THANKSGIVING IS ...
> <%20http://www.rosebriar.uk.com/greetings/holiday/thanksgiving3.html>
> where the URL is
> http://www.rosebriar.uk.com/greetings/holiday/thanksgiving3.html
> <%20http://www.rosebriar.uk.com/greetings/holiday/thanksgiving3.html>
>
> Andis
>