Temple Trauma: Tepe Telegram sneers at Sweatman and Tsikritsis; ignores probabilities; S&T respond

Download (PDF, 2.11MB)

  • ron quitoriano

    George,
    Thank you for posting that.
    I had many of the same reservations as the authors.
    One sticking point is the dating, by the time GT was built any memory if the YD events would have become mythical/legendary events within the oral histories of the local people, so far removed from the actual event in time, that calling it a smoking gun is somewhat of a stretch.
    But, that is not to say that some of the imagery does not have its genesis in an eyewitness account of the events.
    I disagree with their assertion that, because the buildings had roofs they could not be observatories. Newgrange and other passage tombs through out western europe are clearly observatories, as is Okmulgee in Georgia and the observatories of the meso americans all had roofs.

  • ron quitoriano

    The wealth of symbolism at GT is going make it impossible to completely understand what it means, but we can look to how various traditions view these common motifs and apply that to the question.
    There was a paper recently published that discussed how s

  • Martin Sweatman

    Hi Ron, one thing we try to highlight is the fact that the earliest calibrated date given to GT by the archaeologists is determined from the mortar of the rough stone wall of enclosure D – around 9500 BC, which is close to the end of the YD period when global climate underwent another rapid change. Logically, this date need not be the date when GT was first constructed. It is entirely possible that many of the pillars were constructed much closer to the onset of the YD period, around 10,900 BC, and that the rough stone walls were constructed much later. I agree with you, GT can have ‘changed hands’, perhaps several times, over the course of several millennia – it is entirely possible that the later occupants did not know much or anything about what the pillars meant. And yes, a roof would not have made observations impossible, but it would have limited observations somewhat.

  • agimarc

    Interesting article: there are a lot more large, long period comets that previously thought. Previous estimates are off by a factor of seven low. And if there are more interlopers from the Oort / Kuiper than previously thought, the more likely fragmented comets crossing the inner solar system like the YD progenitor and the Kreutz group become. Cheers –

    https://www.space.com/37626-big-dangerous-comets-abundance-wise-data.html

  • Hermann Burchard

    @Agimarc,
    agree with large comet frequency having been underestimated. Beside Kuiper Belt, there is the Centaur Belt, a little closer in between Jupiter & Neptun. Also, Pleistocene geomagnetic excursions like Laschamp 40 ka have occurred with some regularity I believe seeing reports. If true, these could have been signals of ET interference with Gaia. Strengthens Graham Hancock’s prophecy (“These lights will go out and they will not come back.” Alt-TED Lecture YouTube).

  • SteveGinGTO

    Ron –
    I agree with you that Newgrange’s “roof” precludes any argument that roofs refute any site from being observatories. How can it be a refutation?

    One point I’ve held in my head since forever is that the Encke debris is essentially in the ecliptic or close to it, and that means half of their visits come from “out of the Sun”. Like Tunguska did and like Chelyabinsk also did. Observing near the Sun requires observers to do it at dawn or sunset, low near the eastern or western horizons.

    I interpret the construction of these observatories as having more than ceremonial import, but instead were observatories for checking the areas of the sky where dangerous comets have come from before. Not all areas of the world were under ice during the YD stadial. Trying to put myself in the heads of those post-impact peoples, they would have seen:
    1.) One or more oncoming comets,
    2.) Then experienced whatever catastrophes happened in their areas –
    3.) And then the comets would not have been seen again right afterward.
    4.) The obvious connection would have been that the comet(s) caused their local catastrophes
    5.) If it was a Napier-suggested traffic jam of the Taurids, others would likely have been seen before and would be seen for some decades or centuries afterward
    6.) With the others in the sky, some effort would have been taken to learn which ones were dangerous and which ones weren’t. (Their brain sizes were no smaller than ours.)
    7.) With so many observatories all over the ancient world, as far back as cultures go in so many regions, no one has tried to explain why everyone was fixated on what we call the solar system and stars.
    8.) Standard academia calls it all ceremonial, but they literally have no solid basis for this interpretation – handed down from the overly religious world of the early archaeologists.
    9.) None of the “observatory” ideas were accepted by arkies at first, and the ideas pretty much came from peripheral people like Tomkins and Posnansky. Now it is accepted and the academics act as if they had always accepted it, which is far from the truth.
    10.) Posnansky’s 12,000 ya date for Tiahuanaco was laughed at, everyone saying there was no such capacity for architecture at such an early date.
    11.) GT’s 11,600 ya date shoves that denialism down the throats of the arkies.
    12.) Not only was GT built at that super early age, but its technical reality INSISTS that the architecture had developed for many centuries earlier.
    13.) Earlier architecture creeps us closer and closer to the YDB itself.
    14.) What was our real history?
    15.) Many – if not all – of the stone circles were observatories. Solar and lunar extremes, fine, but you don’t need standing stones to the north and south to look at the sunrises and moon sets. What were all the other stones for?
    16.) Those stones only stuck up a few degrees above the horizon, so roofs or no roofs on those wouldn’t have affected the usefulness of whatever they were observing.
    17.) HOW exactly did these peoples use these observatories?
    18.) We are only beginning to understand these observatories. We may be hundreds of years from doing so.
    19.) Ergo, ALL conclusions by either side are premature and must be seen as tentative.

    I have been reading several old scientific books from the 1800s, dating back to 1806. If there is one consistent, it is that their conclusions were often very reasonable but VERY WRONG. We should humbly go forward understanding that scientists of 200 years from now will giggle at some of the ideas held today.

    We are in the chaotic, fumbling early stages of all of this. Thomas Kuhn talked about “paradigms” as times when the “science is settled”. THIS subject is not in a paradigm stage. No matter what some skeptics assert. They only make themselves look buffoonish and anti-Galileo-ish. (No one remembers THEIR names, do they, those anti-Galileo folks?)

    I will be very happy when arkies finally give up their “ceremonial” designation of artifacts and evidence they don’t understand.

  • SteveGinGTO

    Martin –
    I thought your paper was too much filled with speculations on interpretations of vaguely understood symbols. At the same time, it was a good effort.

    As to the pillars having been built earlier, what can you possibly base that idea on? The earliest date is 9600 BCE. Why do you project its construction to earlier? Why is it “entirely possible”?

    And, no, a roof would not have made observations possible. Stone circles are only effective as observatories up to a few degrees above the horizon. They weren’t worth anything for observing things high in the sky. If the stone circle builders were observing low on the horizon, so could the GT peoples.

  • SteveGinGTO

    Stonehenge was reconstructed in the early 1900s. See http://tiny.cc/palqmy . I love how big of a crane was used.

    Same thing with Tiahuanaco. See https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/search?keyword=Tiahuanaco#archives

    I am assuming that any assumption that different peoples used the GT site is only an assumption.

  • agimarc

    Bill Napier et al did a paper 18 months ago about Centaurs being a real threat to the inner solar system. As I remember it (poorly?), the Centaurs end up being a repository, staging ground, for bodies out of the Kuiper / Oort. Orbits there are unstable. Some are ejected. Some come on down. None stay around as Centaurs in stable orbits. Cheers –

  • Hermann Burchard

    Stevo,
    that GT or Stonehenge were observatories is a mere hypothesis. Stonehenge primarily was a place of burial “tower of silence” style, (Colin Renfrew, Sci.Amer., decades ago). The stones probably supported wooden structures to carry bodies of deceased exposed to birds. Similar at Woodhenge, other megalithic alignments and structures. The astronomical alignments purposeful but co-incidental. Same mode of “burial” by exposure to birds in trees or on towers a world-wide tradition by ancient and recent tribes or societies.

  • C.r. Sant

    Hermann B,
    Attributing cult and ritual to megalithic structures is what is easily accepted and safest. You do not have to prove anything. But when you come across engineered scientific structures, mathematically correct and precise, then you cannot escape by a safe attribution. No way it can take place by chance. See pics – links- attached:
    https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2017/02/24/first-blog-post/
    https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2017/04/17/melitamegalithic/

  • C.r. Sant

    Additional:
    Please see chart in this link: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2017/07/02/113/
    The earliest engineered structure can safely be placed at before the 5200bce event. Science wise it is the use of the ‘camera obscura’ plus the geometry of the apse form for converting sinusoidal movement to linear, to make a calendar. Now the next in chronology we know of the camera obscura is by the Chinese Mozi in 5th century bce. The ‘learning curve’ is very shallow. Therefore it is fair to think that the beginnings of understanding of the concepts of those sciences involved had taken much longer; thousand of years. That was no cult, but early science. Other evidence shows that diffusion of knowledge was already widespread.

    One should look for that knowledge, certainly at Stonehenge, and elsewhere too, including GT.

  • SteveGinGTO

    Herman, actually RENFREW’s take on Stonehenge is a far more “out there” “mere hypothesis” than its being a solar observatory. Wow, where did you decide THAT was a final answer?

    “Probably” this and probably that? The solar sunrise on the solstice is a REALITY. No probably about that. You labeling it coincidental, when there are 360 other degrees that the axis could have aligned makes it like a 0.3% chance of aligning – and yet it does. And it is a coincidence? Hardly.

  • ron quitoriano

    Steve,
    GT is a fascinating place, not only for constructions, but for its role in what was a very culturally dyamic region.
    The earlier pre pottery neolithic A phase, with its large stones, is clearly related to the Natufian tradition of the southern levant. Lithics from Jericho are found at GT and visa versa. It was early natufians, in Isreal, that first started tending wild grains, some 24kya. It was those wild grains that lead them to the area in southern turkey and northern syria, that is the perfect environment for various species of wild grains. One thing that fascinates me about the site, is they were storing grain in stone jars and making beer for hundreds of years before they started baking bread.
    The second phase PPN B, has smaller stones, arranged in diffierent patterns, squares and rectangles that were built as rooms, as compared to the circular structures of the PPN A.
    These people has cultural links to NW anatolia, and were herdsmen.
    I believe there was a substanial hiatus between the two occupations.

  • Trent Telenko

    I’m going to throw this link into the mix here, because researchers in Greece have found 5.7 million year old hominin foot print fossils.

    See link:

    http://newatlas.com/fossil-footprints-human-evolution/51163/?li_source=LI&li_medium=default-widget

    And this text extract —

    Fossilized bones and footprints have helped us piece together the history of human evolution. One of the earliest hominins – ancestors of ours that are more closely related to humans than chimps – was a species called Ardipithecus ramidus, which is known from over 100 specimens. Living about 4.4 million years ago, it had an ape-like foot, with the hallux (the big toe) pointing out sideways rather than falling in line like ours. Fast-forward about 700,000 years, and a set of footprints from Laetoli in Tanzania shows that a more human foot shape had evolved by then.

    Enter the newly-discovered footprints. Found in Trachilos in western Crete, they have a distinctly human-like shape, with a big toe of a similar size, shape and position to ours. They appear to have been made by a more primitive hominin than the creature that left the Laetoli prints, but there’s a problem: they also predate Ardipithecus by about 1.3 million years. That means a human-like foot had evolved much earlier than previously thought, throwing a spanner into the accepted idea that the ape-footed Ardipithecus was a direct human ancestor.