.As I have now posted to our LexiLine files in the folders on Egypt,
the Sahara and Africa, the megaliths of Nabta mark the Vernal
Equinox in ca. 3117 BC marking the stars of Taurus (Aldebaran is the
largest of the markers), the Pleiades, the line of stars at the head
of Cetus, plus the celestial equator, celestial meridian, ecliptic
and galactic meridian.
The mainstream interpretation that the megaliths of Nabta mark the
Summer Solstice around 4500 BC as published in Nature is simply
egregiously wrong, dependent on a very erroneous conclusion that the
near N-S-E-W orientation of the megaliths marks the Summer Solstice -
an alignment which is otherwise not used for the summer solstice in
megalithic astronomy - and misinterpreting the
radiocarbon data by taking an older date for a piece of wood of
unknown origin rather than the certain radiocarbon data for charcoal
from the campfires, which dates the Nabta site correctly in the
period ca. 3500 - 3000 BC.
I think it is high time in scientific circles that the kind of
dating practices visible at Nabta by mainstream scientists - who are
erroneously seeking to establish the site as the oldest astronomical
site in the world - be strongly criticized. This kind of dating is
not advancing the cause of science.
Indeed, similar dating and chronology is rampant in archaeology. It
seems that hardly a month goes by without some archaeologist
finding some new pot or skull and claiming fervently that it HIS
find which is the "oldest" find of this type ever found. This has
got to stop.
Below I have formed some general principles which have to be
followed for accurate and serious dating of megalithic sites.
1. There MUST be precursor technology.
The site can not exist in isolation out in the middle of nowhere -
like in the middle of the Sahara, good grief - without a good theory
or evidence as to where the precursor technology came from. For
example, the megaliths in the Ancient Britain and Ireland show a
long history of working with stone - a technology which does not
just arise out of nowhere - you have to have the tools and the
experience to do this kind of work.
In the Sahara, outside of Nabta, there is nothing of the precursor
technology visible . The site suddenly just appears. The notion that
megalithic building and astronomy thus derived from this region is
simply Alice in Wonderland fantasy writing.
2. There MUST be a continuity in the development of technology over
time. Once a given technology is developed, i.e. carving in stone on
a large scale, it just does not disappear. Rather, technologies are
improved and perfected. This applies to tools, methods and materials.
This continuity must be visible.
Hence, it is equally absurd to allege that the megaliths of Nabta
date to 4500 BC in southeast Egypt, with this technology then
peaking at the Pyramids more than 1500 years later, and inbetween
nothing, NOTHING! Sorry, not even in the realm of probability.
3. There MUST be a plausible astronomical and geodetic explanation
as to why a megalithic site is located where it is.
The ancients did not just put these sites up helter-skelter
everywhere just to mark the Sun and Moon going up and down as most
megalithic observers think, i.e. sort of a garden planetarium in
each Neolithic man's back yard. That is just crazy. You do not need
sophisticated megaliths to simply mark the Summer Solstice alone.
But you do need more sophisticated megalithic methods to find the
Equinoxes or to conduct geographic surveys or to determine the
Summer Solstice within the precession of stars.
4. There MUST be a plausible explanation as to who the megalith
makers in any location were. In Sahara, these were most certainly
NOT the previous inhabitants of the Nabta region, who show
no evidence of having worked in large stone prior to the arrival of
the megalith makers. Hence, any radiocarbon dating attributable to
them does NOT apply to the megalith makers. We find the
similar situation for the megaliths of the Central African
Republican. It is quite clear that these megaliths were not put up
by the local population (perhaps they helped put them up based on
instructions from the megalithic surveyors) – rather, this was a one-
time thing for a specific reason, which as I claim was the survey of
Africa by sea voyaging sailors from Ancient Britain.
5. Hence, at any site, there MUST be a determination made whether
the megaliths were constructed by locals or by a small or large
immigrant group, and in what time frame. All of these myriad
possibilities are never taken into account by the archaeologists and
that is why their work and their results are also seriously flawed.
If we find an Indian arrow-head on Manhattan Island, this does not
date the Empire State Building, nor tell us who constructed it. I
hope I have made this important point eminently clear because most
archaeologists, archaeoastronomers, Egyptologists, near Eastern and
old Testament scholars, do not seem to understand it.
No comments:
Post a Comment