In a Grove of Ash (Azor Ahai Goes into the Weirwoodnet)

[LmL]

3 minutes ago, Jon Ice-Eyes said:

Whoa man! I was just making a joke. Obnoxious, yeah, probably, but just an attempt to dilute the seriousness. 

Honestly, I am pretty impressed about this guy's findings. The other archaeologists seem never to have considered that the animals on the megaliths were constellations, which seems like a huge mistake. Almost all megalithic structures had a strong astronomical aspect, shich is definitely something that archaeologists like to overlook. It's pretty impressive, a credit both to Hancock and -- most importantly -- to the people who built the thing. I am certain that Neolithic people were top-notch astromomers and it irks me when people want to make them out to be dumb and ignorant. 

That last sentiment was pretty much what I was getting at with my tangent. I just get riled up when people assume that ancient cultures could only do one thing, or that 'primitive' cultures don't have immense knowledge. They do. Humans are pretty incredible. 

As for evidence and proof, my wife and I actually just had the same conversation. I wasn't clear about it here, but I am totally open to there being material evidence that we don't have. My wife pointed out the thing about ocean levels, too; I know very well that archaeologists have a hell of a time finding things that are now submerged. We've barely begun to look in underwater coastal areas.

Frankly, I would love for someone to find more structures and artifacts that push back the horizon on various human advancements to 10,000 BCE or further. I have spent several years in academia, and unlike too many historians and archaeologists, I am all about revolutionary discoveries that fuck with established paradigms. People spend too much time violently ignoring outlying data; sadly it's the nature of the beast that paradigm shifts take time and are fiercely resisted. 

It's a really cool find. And, relevant to this forum, it actually makes me think The George has read Hancock's work. 

Thanks for sharing this thing that's so interesting and important to you. 

Right on, I really appreciate your response, Like I said, disclaimers - some of Hancocks ideas are wrong or don't seem to have borne out. The "Atlantis / advanced ice age civ" idea is far from proven. Even the comet thing needs to be supported by more physical evidence. I understand everyone is cautious of people overstating claims and all, so it's important to delineate between what is a strongly supported hypothesis or a speculative hypothesis, what is fact and what is interpretation of the ramifications of that fact. But yeah - the basic find is amazing. Brilliant. An wonderful example of deductive reasoning. 

You said 

Quote

I just get riled up when people assume that ancient cultures could only do one thing, or that 'primitive' cultures don't have immense knowledge. They do. Humans are pretty incredible. 

And on this I think we all agree. That's why I don't care for aliens theories. Humans are capable of making these amazing monuments, even if we can't say exactly how they did it for sure in some instances (Balbek, Sphinx Temple, Tiahuanaco, a few others).  And the idea that hunter gatherers can't have advanced knowledge is also being dispelled. Even Neanderthals are 'getting smarter'! 

As to your last point, Hancock's first big hit was Fingerprints of the Gods, which was released in 1994 when George was writing AGOT. It was big news back then because comet Shoemaker Levy 9 was making news:

Quote

 

Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 (formally designated D/1993 F2) was a comet that broke apart in July 1992 and collided with Jupiter in July 1994, providing the first direct observation of an extraterrestrial collision of Solar System objects.^[2] This generated a large amount of coverage in the popular media, and the comet was closely observed by astronomers worldwide. The collision provided new information about Jupiter and highlighted its role in reducing space debris in the inner Solar System.

The comet was discovered by astronomers Carolyn and Eugene M. Shoemaker and David Levy.^[3] Shoemaker–Levy 9 had been captured by Jupiter and was orbiting the planet at the time. It was located on the night of March 24, 1993 in a photograph taken with the 40 cm (16 in) Schmidt telescope at the Palomar Observatory in California. It was the first comet observed to be orbiting a planet, and had probably been captured by Jupiter around 20–30 years earlier.

Calculations showed that its unusual fragmented form was due to a previous closer approach to Jupiter in July 1992. At that time, the orbit of Shoemaker–Levy 9 passed within Jupiter's Roche limit, and Jupiter's tidal forces had acted to pull apart the comet. The comet was later observed as a series of fragments ranging up to 2 km (1.2 mi) in diameter. These fragments collided with Jupiter's southern hemisphere between July 16 and July 22, 1994 at a speed of approximately 60 km/s (37 mi/s) (Jupiter's escape velocity) or 216,000 km/h (134,000 mph). The prominent scars from the impacts were more easily visible than the Great Red Spot and persisted for many months.

 

Good timing for Hancock, and it means that a guy like George almost certainly heard about the book. There are an awful lot of ideas in there which would have been useful for his planning and worldbuilding if my theory is at all correct, as you say.

In short, I forgive you (lol) and greatly appreciate your comment. Cheers. 

[sweetsunray]

3 hours ago, LmL said:

But as Hancock points out, this would have been an all-consuming challenge for people used to living in small, roaming groups. The switch from hunting to agriculture, and from mobile tent villages to settlements, would demand every ounce of energy, diplomacy and ingenuity our ancestors could muster.

How would they find the time to invent complex maths, plot the heavens, master architecture and learn intricate stone-working? All those skills and more were needed to build Gobekli Tepe.

And it's BS. Even hunter gatherers lived semi-sedentary. Check out the lodges built of mammoth bones, or just think of hte culture that painted the Lascaux caves. These people lived months in the same place, and roamed in the same area. If they have time to paint Lascaux, they have time to watch the stars. The above premisse is the idea of someone who never actually took the time to read or even think for 5 mins on hunter gatherer culture.

Stonehenge is BS argument too. Because Stonehenge is actually a far later work than the Ness at Orkney, where the stone circle culture has now been proven to have originated about a 1000 years earlier at least. They built stone closets.

 

[LmL]

24 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

And it's BS. Even hunter gatherers lived semi-sedentary. Check out the lodges built of mammoth bones, or just think of hte culture that painted the Lascaux caves. These people lived months in the same place, and roamed in the same area. If they have time to paint Lascaux, they have time to watch the stars. The above premisse is the idea of someone who never actually took the time to read or even think for 5 mins on hunter gatherer culture.

Stonehenge is BS argument too. Because Stonehenge is actually a far later work than the Ness at Orkney, where the stone circle culture has now been proven to have originated about a 1000 years earlier at least. They built stone closets.

 

I see, so you're going to ignore all the points I raised, ignore the fact you made up a bunch of straw man arguments which aren't in the article, refuse to acknowledge the brilliant discovery Hancock has made at Gobekli Tepe, and you're going to continue to nitpick on his characterization of ancient man's transition from hunter-gatherer to urbanized life, based on one paragraph with no context. I'm not sure why you are being so unreasonable about this, but I would say Graham knows a damn lot about ancient cultures, because he just solved a huge mystery based on understanding the way people thought and acted 12,000 years ago. He will remembered as a brilliant man who made a brilliant discovery, whatever else anyone thinks of his other ideas. If you were decent enough to give him a bit of credit, your criticism might mean something, but instead you just come off as someone stuck to their opinion of someone no matter if they make one of the most amazing discoveries in history.

Graham is well familiar with the idea that hunter-gatherers were semi-sedentary, obviously. He is also a fan of the idea that the cave painters were doing astronomy. His argument that later civilizations inherited knowledge from this proposed lost civ is based on many arguments, not just the argument expressed above. That's why I say context is important. It really seems like you are simply looking for something to judge instead of actually talking about the main point of my post, which was the mythical astronomy archeoastronomy at G.T. You don't have to buy his lost civ hypothesis to acknowledge he's nailed a big one. 

ETA: I mean come on. This is the best and most impressive example of archeo-astronomy we've ever found, and you're not even the slightest bit impressed? We've decoded a message about a comet disaster that happened 13,000 years ago, left by mankind 11,000 years ago entirely through the use of symbolism, astronomy, and monument building... and you are not even the slightest bit impressed? Are you not entertained, I ask you? That whole thing to me is mind blowing. Perhaps you could set aside your loathing for Graham Hancock for a second and appreciate the feat of humanity here. 

[No one is here]

LmL, great essays!  Thanks for the interesting reads!  The one HUGE event that I do not see discussed in your theories is the Valyrian Doom. (Unless I missed it, which is highly possible)  

Do you think the Doom was caused by the Greenseers magic of Westeros..??  

Just curious on how/where the Valyrian Doom fits in with your timeline with the comet entering the moon causing the LN?  

 

[LmL]

3 hours ago, No one is here said:

LmL, great essays!  Thanks for the interesting reads!  The one HUGE event that I do not see discussed in your theories is the Valyrian Doom. (Unless I missed it, which is highly possible)  

Do you think the Doom was caused by the Greenseers magic of Westeros..??  

Just curious on how/where the Valyrian Doom fits in with your timeline with the comet entering the moon causing the LN?  

 

Thanks very much, its always been my intention to win the approval of no one.

Well, sometimes there is confusion about the Doom, but it only hapoened 400 years ago, so it doesn't have anything to do with the Long Night timeline. I do however frequently cited as an example of the way George likes to take a natural disaster like a volcanic eruption or a meteor impact, add a little magic, and come up with a fantasy appropriate version of these natural disasters. So I do talk about it, but only as a point of comparison and as a way of showing that any Comet or meteor impact was likely a magically infused event. 

As for the Doom itself, it is a nice little mystery. I don't have any special Insight on that, just the normal speculation that everyone else has given the clues we have been given. The Faceless Men were almost certainly involved, and we know that the valerians kept the volcanoes under control with magic ( notice how they lived on top of a volcanic range for 5,000 years and never had any problems). I think the thing that makes the most sense would be targeted assassinations of key Mages, leading to a destabilization of a volcanic range with 5,000 years of pent-up fury. 

[Durran Durrandon]

A) Encke and the Taurids is the name of my new band. Nah, I don't play anything, but that is still my band name.

B ) Anything from the Daily Mail is best researched elsewhere. http://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2017/ancient-stone-confirms-date-of-comet-strike, http://maajournal.com/Issues/2017/Vol17-1/Sweatman and Tsikritsis 17(1).pdf. You're welcome.

C ) Not including the title of the original paper "Decoding Göbekli Tepe with Archaeoastronomy: What Does the Fox Say?", is really a tragedy.

D) I haven't read the full article in the journal yet, but  . . .  the problem with and any lost, more advanced civilization, hypothesis is the body of wackadoodle hypotheses out their that surround them. The idea has really been hampered by silly people that insist that aliens taught ancient civilizations to build basic stuff like pyramids, 19th century theosophical crackpots looking  for the a matriarchy with psychic powers from the lost continent of Mu, and the notion that an earlier advanced civilization might mean anything other more than an earlier than thought development of agriculture and masonry. 

I know I get irrationally angry when anyone suggests that aliens directed ancient people to build architectural structures with corbel vaults. Seriously, why would any prick hole of an alien do that to people.  "Hey, should we teach them how to make a proper arch? Nah, it's fun watching them haul way the crap more stone than necessary." It's like people suggesting the citing the Sex Pistols as evidence the punk rock originated in England. It's just a shocking lack of knowledge.

The result is a sort of derangement syndrome, like the way I just really don't want to to listen to anyone who wants to tell me their "Game of Thrones" theory when they start the conversation by referring to Daenerys as Khaleesi.

E) That said it is hard to get people to listen to evidence that maybe Native Americans may have arrived prior to the last ice age or maybe agriculture was developed a few thousand years earlier than we through, when it comes from outsiders to academic archeology.

[Durran Durrandon]

F) I should add that there is parallel derangement syndrome where the scientific communities demand that there should be evidence for stuff, is taken as  conspiracy to cover up the truth,

[sweetsunray]

10 hours ago, LmL said:

I see, so you're going to ignore all the points I raised, ignore the fact you made up a bunch of straw man arguments which aren't in the article, refuse to acknowledge the brilliant discovery Hancock has made at Gobekli Tepe, and you're going to continue to nitpick on his characterization of ancient man's transition from hunter-gatherer to urbanized life, based on one paragraph with no context. I'm not sure why you are being so unreasonable about this, but I would say Graham knows a damn lot about ancient cultures, because he just solved a huge mystery based on understanding the way people thought and acted 12,000 years ago. He will remembered as a brilliant man who made a brilliant discovery, whatever else anyone thinks of his other ideas. If you were decent enough to give him a bit of credit, your criticism might mean something, but instead you just come off as someone stuck to their opinion of someone no matter if they make one of the most amazing discoveries in history.

Graham is well familiar with the idea that hunter-gatherers were semi-sedentary, obviously. He is also a fan of the idea that the cave painters were doing astronomy. His argument that later civilizations inherited knowledge from this proposed lost civ is based on many arguments, not just the argument expressed above. That's why I say context is important. It really seems like you are simply looking for something to judge instead of actually talking about the main point of my post, which was the mythical astronomy archeoastronomy at G.T. You don't have to buy his lost civ hypothesis to acknowledge he's nailed a big one. 

ETA: I mean come on. This is the best and most impressive example of archeo-astronomy we've ever found, and you're not even the slightest bit impressed? We've decoded a message about a comet disaster that happened 13,000 years ago, left by mankind 11,000 years ago entirely through the use of symbolism, astronomy, and monument building... and you are not even the slightest bit impressed? Are you not entertained, I ask you? That whole thing to me is mind blowing. Perhaps you could set aside your loathing for Graham Hancock for a second and appreciate the feat of humanity here. 

The news article is making straw man arguments. The quotes you provided are exactly the ones I take great issue with, as they create a false premisse in the first place. I did not criticise Hancock for that first article, but the first article itself.

At the moment I can only credit Hancock for proposing the idea that Gobleki Tepe might be a site that commemorates a disaster, for I have not read Hancock's claims on this.

As for the paper itself on Gobleki Tepe. It was a great read. I will be researching peer review on the matter.

@LmL there's no need to become personal over this, especially not in relation over what I actually wrote.

[LmL]

@Durran Durrandon, that's much how I see it, and I touched on that issue in my comments above. Derangement syndrome, exactly. It's the same as with religion, something I wrote about in my Lucifer means Lightbringer essay. Many people have been so traumatized by all the evil done in the name of religion and stupidity / willful ignorance done in the name of religion that that they have completely rejected anything beyond a physical reality. They've rejected the wisdom to be found in religious thought... again because of like a bajillion people who have gotten religion wrong throughout the ages. It's just a baby and bathwater thing. 

[LmL]

16 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

@LmL there's no need to become personal over this, especially not in relation over what I actually wrote.

If you'd like to keep it friendly, then I suggest arguing with a little more integrity instead of wriggling like a fish to avoid simply acknowledging that Hancock got one right. A little less sneering would be nice too - I mean you came in and did EXACTLY what I was talking about, so full of sneer and derision (the five year old comment?) that you are blind to the genius on display in Hancock's work, and the way it relates to ASOIAF (which is kind of the point of bringing it up on the forum here). 

As for straw man arguments, I am not sure you understand the definition of a straw man argument. You said that the article made arguments which it did not - not even close - and then knocked down those arguments that it did not make. That is the definition of a straw man argument, when you put a false argument in someone else's mouth and then knock it down as if it refutes them. Nobody appreciates that kind of thing. It is however nice to see you finally give him a teensy bit of credit, that's something. 

[sweetsunray]

15 minutes ago, LmL said:

If you'd like to keep it friendly, then I suggest arguing with a little more integrity instead of wriggling like a fish to avoid simply acknowledging that Hancock got one right. You said that the article made arguments which it did not - not even close - and then knocked down those arguments. That is the definition of a straw man argument, when you put a false argument in someone else's mouth and then knock it down as if it refutes them. Nobody appreciates that kind of thing. It is however nice to see you finally give him a teensy bit of credit, that's something. 

All I've read so far on the matter was the article of the daily news and the paper. I was out all day to an exhibition of surrealists. I'm not going to comment either way on Hancock as long as I have not read his actual claim on that site, exactly because of integrity. I will comment more in debt once I have read up on his own claim on the Turkish site. Not before. 

It stated that hunter gatherers wouldn't spend their time on watching stars closely as fact citing an incorrect lifestyle, basically making them out as savages. I have spent a long time reading on ice age culture since I was a teen. And it annoys the hell out of me when I see those societies misrepresented as if the past 30-40 years science and us have not learned a great deal about them that debunks old-time myths about them. And the way it phrased "a human race like us" (paraphrasing here) before 11k BC was also badly wirtten, as the daily news presented it as if Hancock first proposed there were homo sapiens before 11k BC. I still stand by the claim and my annoyance of the content of that daily news article. 

I don't appreciate being specifically beemed to comment, and then be personally attacked because I don't immediately fall on my knees and praise Hancock.

[LmL]

There is a good debate and conversation to be had about what kind of society might have been able to create something like Gobekli Tepe, a conversation which should take into account all the knowledge and technology demonstrated by the builders. It's one thing to disagree with Graham about this, but to act like the answer is so obvious and cut and dried that only a five year could disagree with you is the kind of sneering disdain which has nothing to do with scientific thought or logic. Furthermore, as I said, you can't possibly understand just what argument he is making from one paragraph. You are wrong to assume he is focusing on the difference between urban and hunter-gatherer societies as the key factor. He's not simply saying that it had to be an urban society to make these. It's a lot more nuanced than that, because he's obviously not a five year old. So again, I would like to have a pleasant conversation, but that would require you to care more about getting to the truth of things than simply being right and reinforcing your disdain for Hancock. All of your comments have been directed at reinforcing your own position, and you've ignored the main point of the post to do so. I have a lot of respect for you and I honestly expect better from you in the way of fair-mindedness. 

[LmL]

4 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

All I've read so far on the matter was the article of the daily news and the paper. I was out all day to an exhibition of surrealists. I'm not going to comment either way on Hancock as long as I have not read his actual claim on that site, exactly because of integrity. I will comment more in debt once I have read up on his own claim on the Turkish site. Not before.

Ok, that's fair in a sense, but the basics are easy: he said just what this research paper said, that the vulture stone had the zodiac, was tuned into this 11,000 bc date, and spoke of a comet impact at that time, which he linked to the Younger Dryas comet. He also had some insight about the Taurid stream and claimed the ancients might have known that's where the comets came from.

4 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

 

It stated that hunter gatherers wouldn't spend their time on watching stars closely as fact citing an incorrect lifestyle, basically making them out as savages.

No, it's saying the exact opposite. This is where we are having a disconnect. The article said:

This means that when the Gobekli stones were made, around 9,000BC (that is, approximately 11,000 years ago), the sculptors had the astronomical know-how to backdate the constellations, shifting their pattern by a couple of millennia. And they were working with information that had been passed down over 2,000 years.

That shows spectacular sophistication. Yet according to common wisdom, humans were savages at this time, hunter-gatherers no more advanced than cavemen, without any knowledge of engineering or mathematics.

It may be overstating the supposed "conventional wisdom," but the point that the article and Hancock is making is that the builders of these monuments clearly were advanced astronomers, and that it is likely man has been doing astronomy for a long time, as opposed to just inventing it int he period between 11 and 9,000 bc. So again, everyone involved - you, me, Graham, the Daily Mail - thinks humans were doing astronomy for a very long time.

4 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

I have spent a long time reading on ice age culture since I was a teen. And it annoys the hell out of me when I see those societies misrepresented as if the past 30-40 years science and us have not learned a great deal about them that debunks old-time myths about them.

Again, we are in agreement. Neither Graham nor the article is saying ice age people were stupid. It's saying the opposite. You can argue the article's characterization of the "conventional wisdom" is outdated, but the point is they don't agree with that view.

The article, paraphrasing Hancock, said:

But as Hancock points out, this would have been an all-consuming challenge for people used to living in small, roaming groups. The switch from hunting to agriculture, and from mobile tent villages to settlements, would demand every ounce of energy, diplomacy and ingenuity our ancestors could muster.

How would they find the time to invent complex maths, plot the heavens, master architecture and learn intricate stone-working? All those skills and more were needed to build Gobekli Tepe.

He is saying that the transition to farming, and doing so in the hostile Younger Dryas climate, would have been very difficult, and would have occupied everyone's time and energy. He's saying that it is far more likely that man has been doing astronomy for a long time before that - the same thing you are saying. We all agree! Ancient humans were great astronomers!
 

4 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

And the way it phrased "a human race like us" (paraphrasing here) before 11k BC was also badly wirtten, as the daily news presented it as if Hancock first proposed there were homo sapiens before 11k BC. I still stand by the claim and my annoyance of the content of that daily news article. 
 

You're talking about this part:

Hancock’s theory is much more plausible: he believes a human civilisation predated the comet strike, one at least as advanced as the Romans.

We don’t know what language they spoke, nor how they recorded their knowledge. But unless a band of refugee hunters in Turkey 11,000 years ago suddenly cracked every major branch of human learning, all at the same time, that elder civilisation must have existed.

There are actually two ideas here. One is that it is likely humans didn't invent everything needed to make G.T. during the Youngr Dryas period, but rather that this knowledge existed before the comet strike. That's where we all agree. The second idea is that this previous civ might have been urban and advanced - at least partially urban. "Like the Romans," Hancock said. This is obviously more controversial, and unproven. Here the DailyMail article may not be quite doing Graham's argument justice, as I was saying - Graham's actual argument is more nuanced and speaks of a range of possibilities. Still, that's the eye-grabbing possibility, that the people who lived before the comet might have been more than more urbanized and "advanced" than anyone thinks they were now. 

4 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

I don't appreciate being specifically beemed to comment, and then be personally attacked because I don't immediately fall on my knees and praise Hancock.

I am sorry you see it that way. I was asking for a little bit of acknowledgement here - I asked if you might have something nice to say about him, my exact words were. I am not expecting you to become some sort of convert or declare all his ideas to be right, obviously. But you had previously spoke of him as a total quack and charlatan, someone who was doing people a disservice by misinforming them, so I think it is totally fair to hold you to account for that position in light of the new discovery and see if you opinion has changed at all. It's okay to say "maybe he's not a total nut," or "I disagree with a lot of his ideas, but it looks like he got one here, good for him." 

[sweetsunray]

I think your interpretation of the daily news article is one I can hardly read in it with squinted eyes even.

I said positively what I could say positively about Hancock on this topic within the little time I could read the daily news article and the actual paper, reserving any other more in depth answer until I have had the opportunity to read up on it myself personally.

And yes, I have reasons for being generally sceptic of Hancock: his own contradictions when confronted in debate: 1-  he has admitted he doesn't do science, doesn't want to do science. 2 - he has backed up both bad and pseudo science and dubious evidence and promoted it and cry foul because scientists take issue with that. 3 - he made a huge theory of certain angles being precise as fundamental for time stamp reasons, and then when confronted it actually is far from precise, he waves it off "that it wasn't that important to the people at the time". Well, what is it? 

In contrast to the last we have the paper of Gobekli Tepe stating from the start that if it is indeed an astronomical time-stamp it is not precise (no angles) and in some regards not clear. The paper takes the responsible approach, cautious and conditional. I still have to check on the statistical approach at  the end.

Now if I can find a an article or youtube video on this particular topic that doesn't start with  someone saying right out of the bat "well, coudln't have been the hunter gatherers" as fact and Hancock not even correcting them, I might actually be able to give a proper review.

[LmL]

8 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

I think your interpretation of the daily news article is one I can hardly read in it with squinted eyes even.

I said positively what I could say positively about Hancock on this topic within the little time I could read the daily news article and the actual paper, reserving any other more in depth answer until I have had the opportunity to read up on it myself personally.

And yes, I have reasons for being generally sceptic of Hancock: his own contradictions when confronted in debate: 1-  he has admitted he doesn't do science, doesn't want to do science. 2 - he has backed up both bad and pseudo science and dubious evidence and promoted it and cry foul because scientists take issue with that. 3 - he made a huge theory of certain angles being precise as fundamental for time stamp reasons, and then when confronted it actually is far from precise, he waves it off "that it wasn't that important to the people at the time". Well, what is it? 

In contrast to the last we have the paper of Gobekli Tepe stating from the start that if it is indeed an astronomical time-stamp it is not precise (no angles) and in some regards not clear. The paper takes the responsible approach, cautious and conditional. I still have to check on the statistical approach at  the end.

Now if I can find a an article or youtube video on this particular topic that doesn't start with  someone saying right out of the bat "well, coudln't have been the hunter gatherers" as fact and Hancock not even correcting them, I might actually be able to give a proper review.

You'd probably have to read his last book to get his argument, and I am not sure you would want to do that. I am not sure why you would think Hancock has some sort of control over the Daily Mail article to "correct them." Honestly, the Daily Mail article is of no consequence, I could have shared any of the many articles summarizing the research paper, and that's why I linked to the paper and why I did a fair amount of summarization in my original post, to highlight the things I thought were interesting and relevant to ASOIAF. 

I've not heard Graham argue that accuracy wasn't important - he always says just the opposite. That's his whole position, that the ancients incorporated the precessional math and astronomical alignments to a degree of accuracy that we can infer they are intentional.

Anyway, I am glad you read the scholarly paper and got something out of it. To me, it is mind-blowing, no matter where the builders fall on the scale of urban to rural (and really, Hancock's argument isn't that the GT builders were urbanized, but that the people who lived before the comet might have been). The idea people from 13,000 years ago can send us this kind of message through stone carvings is just... wow. I mean it's amazing, it fills me with a sense of awe at the human mind and spirit. 

[sweetsunray]

25 minutes ago, LmL said:

I am not sure why you would think Hancock has some sort of control over the Daily Mail article to "correct them." Honestly, the Daily Mail article is of no consequence, I could have shared any of the many articles summarizing the research paper, and that's why I linked to the paper and why I did a fair amount of summarization in my original post, to highlight the things I thought were interesting and relevant to ASOIAF. 

Well, if the article was written with Hancock's cooperation, he certainly has some control. I do not know whether or how far Hancock cooperated with the article. But for the moment any youtube search on Gobekli together with Hancock leads to a mass of videos I can barely stomach over 5 mins.

ATM I am watching a Nat Geographic documentary on Gobekli finds. And will be watching a BBC one next.

25 minutes ago, LmL said:

I've not heard Graham argue that accuracy wasn't important - he always says just the opposite. That's his whole position, that the ancients incorporated the precessional math and astronomical alignments to a degree of accuracy that we can infer they are intentional.

This actually happened in a BBC confrontation. Have to search for it again, but I think it's called "Atlantis debunked".

25 minutes ago, LmL said:

Anyway, I am glad you read the scholarly paper and got something out of it. To me, it is mind-blowing, no matter where the builders fall on the scale of urban to rural (and really, Hancock's argument isn't that the GT builders were urbanized, but that the people who lived before the comet might have been). The idea people from 13,000 years ago can send us this kind of message through stone carvings is just... wow. I mean it's amazing, it fills me with a sense of awe at the human mind and spirit. 

Of course it is a wonderful site all by itself. The archeologists within the NG documentary (as much as I've seen of it so far), propose it was built by hunter gatherers, as none of the animal bones/remains dug up at the site are domesticated bovines or pack animals, but all wild animals. 

With the Ness of Brognar at Orkney (now proven to long predate Stonehenge) for example, one "temple" (a building, but without actual living quarters and stone closets and the like) was "burned" down and hundreds of bovine bones found with it. The Ness of Brognar was a very good place to live for a certain period, because it was warmer then. But it grew colder, the weather more troublesome, and the Ness was abandoned, and one of its major buildings of this urbanized cult centre (in the stone age, neolithic, but agricultural already).destroyed ritually along with a BBQ of slaughtered cattle. 

That's why archeologists investigate food deposits and animal remains burried within a site, because it immediately tells us something of the way of life: how did they get their food. Gazelles, foxes, aurochs and boar are wild animals. If Gobekli was built by farmers or a husbandry culture we'd have sheep/goat (if old likely closer to moufflon), dogs, pigs, horses, donkeys and/or ancestral cattle species; or we'd have slightly modificated grains (instead of the wild versions), modificated barley, instead of evidence for nut cracking.

If you haven't read it yet, I recommend Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond regarding domestication of both animals as well as plant life.

 

[LmL]

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Well, if the article was written with Hancock's cooperation, he certainly has some control. I do not know whether or how far Hancock cooperated with the article.

No, it's just one of many articles summarising the new GT finds, all of which mention Hancock as having first done this research at GT. And to be honest, I am so familiar with the entire set of arguments around these issues that I didn't even pay much attention to the framing of one particularly summary article from the next - I just grabbed one of them as an example of the find. I had already read the scholarly summary and had already read Hancock's arguments. That's why I put my own summary in the comment. 

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

 

But for the moment any youtube search on Gobekli together with Hancock leads to a mass of videos I can barely stomach over 5 mins.

Like I said I read his book, that's where I got it. I know he did two interviews with Joe Rogan recently, but they talk about the flood stuff most of the time. If I find a good summary I will let you know 

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

 

ATM I am watching a Nat Geographic documentary on Gobekli finds. And will be watching a BBC one next.

Care to drop a link where I could find it? I've seen a couple documentaries about GT but don't remember which ones. 

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

This actually happened in a BBC confrontation. Have to search for it again, but I think it's called "Atlantis debunked".

If so, that's poor, but I would like to see the transcript/ footage. In his books he's always very consistent on this issue. It would be a major reversal to say accuracy doesn't matter. 

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Of course it is a wonderful site all by itself. The archeologists within the NG documentary (as much as I've seen of it so far), propose it was built by hunter gatherers, as none of the animal bones/remains dug up at the site are domesticated bovines or pack animals, but all wild animals. 

With the Ness of Brognar at Orkney (now proven to long predate Stonehenge) for example, one "temple" (a building, but without actual living quarters and stone closets and the like) was "burned" down and hundreds of bovine bones found with it. The Ness of Brognar was a very good place to live for a certain period, because it was warmer then. But it grew colder, the weather more troublesome, and the Ness was abandoned, and one of its major buildings of this urbanized cult centre (in the stone age, neolithic, but agricultural already).destroyed ritually along with a BBQ of slaughtered cattle. 

That's why archeologists investigate food deposits and animal remains burried within a site, because it immediately tells us something of the way of life: how did they get their food. Gazelles, foxes, aurochs and boar are wild animals. If Gobekli was built by farmers or a husbandry culture we'd have sheep/goat (if old likely closer to moufflon), dogs, pigs, horses, donkeys and/or ancestral cattle species; or we'd have slightly modificated grains (instead of the wild versions), modificated barley, instead of evidence for nut cracking.

If you haven't read it yet, I recommend Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond regarding domestication of both animals as well as plant life.

 

Yes I have read all of Diamond's books, they are fabulous. Enjoyed his last one about what we can learn from indigenous cultures. And yes, I am aware GT seems to have been built by partially sedentary hunter-gatherers, and that there are no clues to indicate people lived there. Seems solidly like a religious/ ceremonial / observatory type / gathering place type of location. What i wonder is, why so many circles in the same place? What other messages might be in there? 

I am also fascinated by the possibility that they had pinpointed the Taurid stream as the origin of the killers. Makes you wonder about some of the Sumerian / Mesopotamian bull mythology. Beyond the myth, it's just fascinating they figured that out, if they did. Setting aside the ancients, the Taurid stream itself is cool because it is all most likely a remnant of a very, very large comet that disintegrated, and the thought there are a bunch of monsters lurking in the stream is freaky. 

[sweetsunray]

On Gobekle Tepe, so far I've watched these video's which gives different informative angles.

the important facts I gather from this are:

• The main buildings that are heavily studied and documented aren't the oldest buildings there, which have not been excevated yet. Some might go back as building experience from 13k or older.
• the people who built it were sedentary living hunter gatherers, based on animal bone deposits
• the buildings were not used to live in, but a cult centre
• the builders and worshippers lived in nearby different settlements (radius of 200 km, that have been dated to coincide with the timing of the main known temples)
• between the time of Gobekli Tepe structure C and D and 2000 years later the people have become farmers
• the pillars do have carvings of human figures (but without faces) that are towering, aside from pictures of animals on it. I'm not entirely convinced of Klaus's hypothesis that the animals are there to represent humans dominating them, but that the pillars are giant human towering figures is quite a cultural change of man's view on his place on earth and nature that signifies an enormous mind shift.
• 50-60 men could lever out the monolith with wooden levers from the nearby quarry, and use those levers to move the monolith to the desired place. The carving of a boar on the stone can be done with a stone hammer in 6 hours. A total estimated 6-12 months would be required with a team of 50-60 builders to build one enclosure. It's not proven that these builders actually used that moving tactic. But team experiments have been done on different sites across the world and time and time again show it's not an impossible job for a team that sets their mind and will behind a united effort, even for a challenge of a documentary.
• the mound/hill is basically man made. The buildings were built, buried, built on again, buried, built on again, buried, etc time and time again. And as the temples were buried and a new one was built on top of it, downsized in work. Simultaneously smaller personal temples with similar motifs appear in the local villages, until eventually it is taken inside each individual home as a type of mini-shrine, and thus the main site loses its significance and overall communal purpose.
• Gobekli Tepe was thus buried by the decendents of the builders on purpose. This at least suggests that if Gobekli Tepe (or one of its structures) was only built to commemorate a memorial event, in the following 2000 years the people who had become farmers had no knowledge anymore of its purpose as an event memorial.
• People in the area buried their dead, then excevated them and removed the skull, during and years and years later. Their own dead are kept headless. So, the headless man (with phallus) depicted on the monolith is more than an abstract representation of a disastrous death. It's how the builders and their descendents treated their dead relatives. This imo does put some doubt on the interpretation of the headless man in the peer reviewed astro-archeology paper, especially if there is evidence that the skulls were taken inside the temples or the homes by the people of the area at the time.

A less than 10 min section of a BBC documentary on it. Rehashes the initial part of the prevoius video, but is especially interesting as it goes into the "wheat" evidence.

I mentioned how Jared Diamond's book is of interest with regards to some particular facts about domestication, especially with grains, rice, corn.... The farmed version is often very different from its wild version. The above video shows the crucial first step genetic difference between normal wild wheat (and why it's such a problem to harvest) and the type of wheat that would have prompted the opportunity to farm. And the first necessary genetic mutation for wheat is that it loses its ability to drop its seeds easily at first touch. The wild plant would need to lose its seeds at the slightest touch, to propagate its genes. A wheat that retains its seeds even when cut and shaken would be a plant that wouldn't survive as a genetic mutation in the wild for long. But if it were gathered by people already living sedentary who gather it up and recognize its value for them, we thus see the needed accident that pushes for farming, and vice versa. Now the origin of the wheat with this genetic mutation traces back to that area in Turkey.

This is a reading by Ian Holler on both Gobekli and Chatalhuyuk (several thousands years later), but clarifying some of the above in detail. Certainly a recommended reading and presentation on archeological findings, research, symbolism, etc... At the very least it broadens the perspective of why the archeologists think the animals depicted havve to do with social ritual to bring about long term settlement, and bonding of a larger group of people. It also goes into the taking of the skulls and what was done to the skulls. So their interpretaton does not come out of the blue, but links to other data of other settlements and what they see happen there.

I found this video interesting for two reasons:

It is an interview or Q&A with Andrew Collins after he "discovered" together with one of his tourists he guided in the museum of Gobekli an artifact that looks like an engraving or depiction of the central pillars in one of the Gobekli temples/encolsures. You may find the discussion on what it depicts and what it might mean interesting. It is also interesting, because it clarifies a few issues with regards Hancock's claims, or the claim that Hancock is the man who had the idea. Let's say that both Andrew Collins and Hancock are both alternative populist brainstormers with similar ideas. They both write books, but Hancock sells better. Both have astro-archeological ideas regarding Gobekli, except they disagree on what astronomical direction or star one must focus (a star at the north or a star in Orion at the south). Furthermore it also clarifies that of the two Andrew was actually the first one who focused on Gobekli not long after its discovery, and Hancock picked it up after him. This is one of the things that Hancock is actually good at - he ammasses ideas of others, and most of his proposals are echoes of others that precede him (some are plain old). Except they sell less books or don't have the the platform or are dead and thus less known. I don't know who of the two is "right" - Andrew, Hancock or neither, or both only partially. But I do think it's very important to be aware of this, because it does put a perspective in how much Hancock is a genius, and what exactly he is so generally genial on then (over time I find that his genius is mostly the promotion of his name).  

 

[Unchained]

I am not super knowledgeable on this subject, but I wanted to throw in my 2 cents anyway.  Last I heard people were still focused on the nanodiamond layer in the soil being that comet's version of the iridium layer in the soil left by the asteroid at the end of the Cretaceous.  I wasn't aware it had fizzled out.  That research paper connecting it to GT is unbelievable.  It's like something straight out of fiction.  I agree that is what Hancock will be remembered for regardless of any crimes against the scientific method he may have committed.  Isaac Newton spent a lot of time working on alchemy and decoding the Bible (what kind of lunitic would read the same book over and over looking for hidden secrets), but only the real science he did is ever discussed today.  You have to be forgiving to visionary types from time to time for being a little crazy it goes with the territory.  

 

The younger Dryas is not the only climate altering event I think is used in the books.  The very first time I read about the crazy seasons in ASoIaF I thought of the Roman warm period - Middle Ages cold period - medieval warm period - little ice age series.  It is believed that the medieval cold period was set off and/or made more extreme by a volcanic eruption.  GRRM seems to be directly referencing this theory with the Doom of Valyria.  He just had the volcano also be the source of the Rome analogue's demise instead of just happening around the same time.  

 

Following all those climate events, we get the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.  Of course I have no way to support it, but I always wondered if this wasn't one of the reasons George filled the AA myth with so much rebirth and light bringing.  A flaming sword wielding ice demon killing hero will be useful, but planetos really needs some leaders to usher in those periods.  After spending so much time showing us how horrible feudalism is I hope for an ending that hints that it is coming in some way.  The best example I am aware of showing enlightenment knowledge changing people's mentality involves the most famous comet of all.  Halley used Newtons laws of gravity to predict when the comet later named for him would appear next and put an end to everyone thinking comets were signs of doom, victory, or whatever popped into their heads like we see in ASoIaF.  By doing that, he made the comet his, also like we see a bunch of people do in ASoIaF.  Again, no idea if this is something GRRM was thinking about or not, but I like to think it is.  

[sweetsunray]

5 minutes ago, Unchained said:

Isaac Newton spent a lot of time working on alchemy and decoding the Bible (what kind of lunitic would read the same book over and over looking for hidden secrets), but only the real science he did is ever discussed today.  You have to be forgiving to visionary types from time to time for being a little crazy it goes with the territory.  

Well, Isaac Newton of course wrote and tested proposed laws and formulas following the scienitific method, published it that way and used the mathematical derivations and proofs for it, in a manner that he could not with his alchemy and bible deciphering. The anology does not follow for Hancock, alas (as far as I know at the moment). I mainly see others doing the work, the digging, the discovering of sites, the writing of papers and at the very least proposing statistical probability for their proposal. Whatever scientific field someone proposes a hypothesis in, they have to include verifiable methods to their proposals for them to earn a noble prize. I can propose a set of quantum laws and particles, write it on a paper and date it and put my  name on it, but unless I provide actual research methods and calculations to prove that it's a - worth investigating b - can be ultimately discovered given enough time my proposals are just that. If I don't do the latter, but someone else accidentally stumbles on it and writes a paper with the math behind it, and test results, they'll get the honors, not I.

I'm not saying that Hancock hasn't done that on this topic (at the moment I just don't know). I'm saving watching Hancock's personal exposition on this for last. Now that I have some various background info on Gobekli itself, I'll be moving on to the cold dip around 10k BC and the various papers and proposals out there. Then I'll have a general background idea to his own words, and give credit where credit is due.