Culture of Old Europe Is Uncloaked in an Exhibit at N.Y.U. - LexiLine Journal 528

Culture of Old Europe Is Uncloaked in an Exhibit at N.Y.U. - NYTimes.com:

"The little-known culture is being rescued from obscurity in an exhibition, “The Lost World of Old Europe: the Danube Valley, 5000-3500 B.C.,” which opened last month at the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World at New York University. More than 250 artifacts from museums in Bulgaria, Moldova and Romania are on display for the first time in the United States. The show will run through April 25."

Megaliths and Astronomy : Island of the Setting Sun - In Seach of Ireland's Ancient Astronomers - LexiLine Journal 527

There is a lovely book called Island of the Setting Sun - In Search of Ireland's Ancient Astronomers, by Anthony Murphy and Richard Moore about the astronomical alignments and mythic connections of Irelands ancient monuments. It is published by the Liffey Press.

Best Regards,
Wilson Bertram

Ancestral Pueblo Anasazi Kivas Were Used for Astronomy - LexiLine Journal 526

If you are lucky enough to be near Denison University in Granville, Ohio, [not far from Columbus, Ohio] Thursday of this week, go there, as Jim Krehbiel will deliver an illustrated lecture about his work from 7 to 9 p.m. Thursday at Slater Hall Auditorium on the campus of Denison University in Granville.

Information via Sacred studies : Ohio Wesleyan art professor uncovers celestial connection in desert Southwest, a November 1, 2009 article by Doug Caruso at THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH. Read the whole article. Here is my summary with a link to the important illustration:

Two Ohio Wesleyan professors have greatly furthered the cause of our decades-long megalithic research by confirming what I have always argued about the ancient megaliths and such megalithic sites as the Malta Temples. They are all astronomy, here on the example of the Anasazi (Ancestral Pueblo) Kivas, as proven by Jim Krehbiel, head of the Ohio Wesleyan University Art Department, together with Barbara Andereck, a professor of astronomy and physics at Ohio Wesleyan and one of her students, Natalie Cunningham, who did important calculations. Here is what they have discovered about the Kivas as astronomical observatories, using stone formations as lines of sight:


source of the ilustration at
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/science/stories/2009/11/01/graph.html

Tsunami due to Santorini Eruption [1627 B.C. by LexiLine Journal Calculations] - LexiLine Journal 525

Below is the Abstract to an article published in the October issue of GEOLOGY .
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.
______________

Walter (polestar101) wrote:

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.
______________

Andis Kaulins replied:

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.

Gobekli Tepe and Nabta Playa dates - LexiLine Journal 524

Open Minded Polestar101 wrote:

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 10,000 BC? Just curious why
you appear to filter out the earliest dating?
______________

Andis Kaulins replied:

Thank you for your excellent comment. I have pre-answered many of your questions previously in my German-language article Das Tanum System - ein alteuropäisch-afrikanisches Vermessungssystem at http://www.scribd.com/doc/12402525/Das-Tanum-System-ein-alteuropaischafrikanisches-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 gú-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.
_____________

Polestar relied:

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.
______________

Andis Kaulins replied:

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 where Bischoff writes, for example:

"Comment CAFER HÖYÜK
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 ):

""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 Göbekli 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@informath.org, 22 February 2006, online at 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 Kültepe [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 ".

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.
______________

Robert (ronen1968) writes:

To be fair, aside from charcoal evidence, Fred Wendorf does resort to some astronomical speculations for his dating. The following is from http://www.comp-archaeology.org/WendorfSAA98.html

"Among the ring of stones are four pairs of larger stones, each pair set close together and separated by a narrow space, or gate. The gates on two of these pairs align generally north-south; the gates on the other two pairs form a line at 70⁰ east of north, which aligns with the calculated position of sunrise at the summer solstice 6000 years ago. In the center of the circle are six upright slabs arranged in two lines , whose astronomical function, if any, is not evident. Charcoal from one of the numerous hearths around the "calendar" dated around 6800 years ago (6000 bp +- 60 years, CAMS - 17287)."

But I'm confused about Wendorf's dating terminology. I thought bp, as opposed to bc, meant before present, as in before 1950. If this is so, then 6000 bp would be about 4050 bc, or 6000 years ago. Yet Wendorf equates 6000 bp to 6800 years ago in the above paragraph. He does this throughout his paper. What am I missing?
______________

Walter (polestar101) replied to the posting of Andis Kaulins:

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.
______________

Andis Kaulins replied:

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.
_____________

Walter (polestar101) replied:

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.
______________

Andis Kaulins replied:

I see exactly the opposite development.

In anthropology, the actual "age" of mankind has been reduced to a fraction of what it was thought to be in my school days, where people then talked about man as existing for millions of years. That always appeared to be illogical to me because there should then be more evidence present of what man did in that period.

In fact, modern genetic evidence indicates that humans "Out of Africa" occurred only within maybe about the last 60,000 years and that the real age of homo sapiens is surely not more than 200,000 years (and perhaps even much less than that) - not millions of years.

Mankind in our intellectually advanced form has not been around that long on Earth at all and so I find all this discussion about "lost civilizations" to be bunk - that is my personal opinion, take it as you will - it is of course interesting, exciting and provoking to argue for lost civilizations, but hardly believable. Nor does it match the evidence. To me, new age science is a branch of fiction.

This has nothing to do with my not having an open mind. I probably have one of the most open minds in science - but only to actual facts, and I am as critical of the "new agers" as I am of "mainstream archaeology" because they are both in the business of hokum marketing.

The development of mankind is an evolutionary development and that evolution can be followed like a vector over time - and this applies especially to man's stone technology.

This evolution is not the same of course for all human groups and some groups have evolved technologically more advanced than others and some much less so or not at all.

Archaeologists just do not seem to apply that recognition to the past in their assessment of dating and chronology.

Just look at the Earth population today and you will see that there are still many primitive groupings on our planet - indeed, the main battle being fought politically on our globe today is precisely that, civilization versus primitivism.

I do not deny that some human groups were already advanced starting at the Holocene , i.e. about 10,000 years ago. Indeed, as aptly noted at the Wikipedia :

""Human civilization dates entirely within the Holocene."

However, their stone technology did not develop out of thin air and the vector of development should be traceable - and, indeed, properly interpreted - is in fact traceable in the archaeological evidence.

But you do not have thousands of years of gap in the appearance of the same technology.

The Gobekli Tepe and Nabta Playa stone technology dates out of the period 4000-3000 BC, just as the Malta Temples, so in my opinion.

Should probative evidence surface that the dating is actually older, I am quite willing to change my mind, but the astronomy of the stones tells me that the lower date of 4000-3000 BC is quite accurate, and I have seen or heard nothing to make me change my view.

Gobekli Tepe Decipherment Dating Exhibition & Videos - - LexiLine Journal 523

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)

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 some of the mainstream archaeologists is woefully wrong and based on the wishful thinking of many of these 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:

"... 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:

"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:

"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 - 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=7XqfjWCUgfk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmSIG4qV2Sg&feature=related (in German language - Göbekli Tepe Stelenscan)
Göbekli Tepe I (in German)
Göbekli Tepe II (in German)
Göbekli Tepe Official Website (very poor)
Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (official Göbekli Tepe site of the German Archaeological Institute)

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 (Gebundene Ausgabe) von Klaus Schmidt (Autor)
______________

Update:

Gilbert de Jong has some ideas on Halley's Comet and ancient sites. I do not agree with many of his conclusions, but I do agree that the ancients paid much more attention to Halley's Comet than we give them credit for.

Below is our correspondence - published with permission:

"Hi Andis,

Sure,

I have seen the moving tail on the stones also (if that is the reference you refer to). Although I have an idea what went on Gobleki Tepe and other sites

Gilbert de Jong

....

---

Hi Gilbert,

I am very sympathetic to your approach because of a discovery I have made at Gobekli Tepe,
where I think one of the stones marks Halley's Comet.
Are you in agreement that I publish all of your emails below to the following site
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/LexiLine/
We have about 450 members. Feel free to join.
It will give your idea more publicity.
I of course do not agree with you in all particulars, but I do agree that Halley's Comet was important throughout ancient eras.

>
> Hello Andis,
>
> Almost two years ago I begot this e-mail from you. I invite you to an
> article involving Halley's Comet and which has been published recently on
> Newgrange.com
>
> The Irish/English people seem to have known that Halley's Comet returned
> long before 3100 BC. In fact we can notice in Lascaux cave that horse manes
> (the comet's hairy tail) and the Bulls horns (iontails) were metaphors of
> Halley's Comet already in 14.000 BC (see the last image on the article)
>
> I have received some enthusiastic response to the idea that Halley's Comet
> is related to ancient religion far, far before the birth of Christ and have
> been spread worldwide (even the Maya's as you have noticed!) and finally led
> to the construction of the Giza pyramids (the triad of April 18 2647 BC of
> Reguls, Saturn and Jupiter in Leo)
>
> So, if you have time:
> http://www.newgrange.com/halleys-comet.htm
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Gilbert de Jong
>

>
> Hello Gilbert,
>
> Thank you for your kind comments and material, but I work mostly alone on my
>
> research and have almost no time for correspondence, so I will not be able
> to continue this e-mail exchange.
>
> However, if this matter interests you enough, consider joining our History
> of Civilization Newsletter Group at
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/LexiLine/
>
> There is no question but that Halley's Comet is important in ancient
> astronomy and has been somewhat neglected by the scholars. However,
> calculating when Halley appeared in ancient times is very difficult since
> the orbital period can vary substantially from 76 years.
>
> I have written about Halley's Comet at
> http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi75.htm
>
> Andis
>

> >
> >Hi Andis,
> >
> >Every time I try to find something that interests me your name is popping
> >up. I might have a clue to ancient Egyptian 'knowledge' that might interest
> >you. So I decided to drop you a few lines. You are an educated man and I
> >hope you'll appreciate a small hint to the King of Heavens. I appreciate
> >(and appreciation is hard to get these days, don't you think?) your work
> >very much.
> >
> >I have been interested in ancient cultures for the last ten years. I have
> >visited Peru (Nazca) and Bolivia (El Fuerte, Samaipata), China, Crete,
> >Egypt, Stonehenge, and I have my own theory on the source of civilization
> >of
> >men. Mmm, well I expected some kind of relation but I at that time I didn't
> >figure out what it was. I thought it had something to do with the
> >(heliacal)
> >appearances of Venus. I was wrong. It took me about 9 years to find out
> >that
> >I was wrong using Starry Night Pro as reference. Now I think might have
> >found the universal source that unites them. (Well, unites)
> >
> >You are so close but there is one part of the story that was so important
> >to
> >our ancestors, to their beliefs, to their Faith. They made sacrifices to
> >it.
> >Smashed in heads. Buried elephants in honour (Hierakonpolis) of this event.
> >
> >It came with fire, like a serpent, a snake, a scorpion's tail, a spear, an
> >arrow. It came from the black (KM/Kem). It came from a distant place (.T).
> >It came from the Universe (KM.T/Kemet)
> >
> >If elephants are mice to whom are they offered? Egyptian answer: it must be
> >an enormous and sacred Cobra.
> >
> >So where do we find sacred cobra's in Egypt? Well, some kings carry them on
> >their foreheads. They are named: Uraeus (and they spit fire too)
> >
> >What about the pyramids in Giza. They were in honor of Jupiter (according
> >Herodotus) and he was right. But actually they were in honor of the King of
> >Heaven who returned every, lets say 75/76 years.
> >
> >Proof? Well, yes there is. They idea behind it is very simple, very
> >convincing. In the night, morning and/or evening they saw a comet. We still
> >do. But in ancient times it was more impressive. In fact references to the
> >time of the Babylonians and the Chinese still exist. References that state
> >that 'Kometes, Greece' looked like horns, antlers still exist. In Peru
> >(Nazca) they saw it as a catlike animal with an atlatl that threw a spear
> >towards earth (Helaine Silverman: Cahuachi). In the Olmec period, hundreds
> >of years before, they looked at it the same way (Izapa). The hences of
> >Britain seem to have been built and adjusted when the King of Heavens
> >(China) appeared.
> >
> >So if the perihelion dates of the return of Halley's Comet would have been
> >calculated by some astronomer; we would be able to see if the position of
> >planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Saturn and Jupiter), in the weeks before or
> >after the perihelion, would match the place in heavens that the chronicles
> >(or legends) gave us. So: visibility of the comet>the position of planets
> >in
> >the constellations or at transit positions>might have inspired 'the
> >ancients' to built monuments in honor of the King of Heaven (Halley's
> >Comet).
> >
> >They did. They left us the Giza pyramids (well, they started with king
> >Menes), they left us Stonehenge (although they started much earlier), they
> >left us the Nasca cultures (= which means 'being born") based on earlier
> >coastal cultures as Caral, they left us Huanacauri>El Fuerte (Samaipata)
> >the
> >start of the Inca empire, they left as Sumeria (with the ziqqurats), they
> >left us India (Ganges cultures with the sacred Cow (>horns/antlers) and
> >China.
> >
> >In fact in my opinion sun or moon eclipses are not the answer to the start
> >of the Egyptian or Mayan calendar. They can't be because eclipses can be
> >watched only locally. If an eclipse occurs in Egypt it won't be seen in
> >Peru. There is no proof that there has been a relation between Peru and
> >Egypt in the time of the Pharoahs. If we accept the fact, as you propose,
> >that Egyptian and Mayan calendars start at the same date than we must admit
> >that something (astronomically) more important was going on. Some event
> >that
> >could have been watched on both continents.
> >
> >This event occurs every 75/76 years: the apparition or visibility of Comet
> >Halley. The appearances of Halley's Comet seem to have been watched in
> >Egypt
> >(as a giant snake) together with the (parallel) heliacal appearance of two
> >planets (two bright eyes) in the morning from very remote times.
> >
> >Well, I think both astronomical circumstances (the calculation of the
> >visibility (near perihelion) of Halley's Comet are checkable and the
> >parallel heliacal rising of two planets are checkable) for 25/26 December
> >3117 BC. I think this would make up the ultimate connection between China,
> >Peru, Europe and Africa. Because they would have seen the giant snake
> >circling around Leo's head in the morning at the same time two planets had
> >their parallel heliacal appearance.
> >
> >I would like to discuss this topic more if you are interested,
> >
> >Kind regards,
> >
> >Gilbert. J. de Jong

Genetics of British Ancestry - LexiLine Journal 522

Modern genetic studies are in part confirming and in part challenging established ideas about mankind's ancient migrations.

A case in point is provided by Myths of British ancestry, an article by Stephen Oppenheimer at Prospect magazine online, where he writes, for example, that:

"[T]here is no agreement among historians or archaeologists on the meaning of the words "Celtic" or "Anglo-Saxon." What is more, new evidence from genetic analysis (see note below) indicates that the Anglo-Saxons and Celts, to the extent that they can be defined genetically, were both small immigrant minorities. Neither group had much more impact on the British Isles gene pool than the Vikings, the Normans or, indeed, immigrants of the past 50 years."

Read the article and the update Myths of British ancestry revisited, with reader comments,
as well as First Drafts, the Prospect magazine blog and the posting there at The Origins of Modern Man: Q and A with Stephen Oppenheimer by Brian Semple.

Hat tip to John Gartside who also provides us with the following link:
How Old is English? - at http://www.proto-english.org/index.html

Semites and Jews : Phoenician Gene : Judaism of Hebrews is a Religion : Jews are not a Separate Race of People but are Ethnic - LexiLine Journal 521

The terms Semite and Semitic were first coined by the German historian August Ludwig von Schlözer only in the modern era in the year 1781 to designate the progeny of Shem of the Bible, so that if we speak about Semites or talk about Semitic language, we are still quite "stuck" to the Bible in our conversation and our concepts, even if we try to avoid that Bible.

In any case, I think that any serious researcher would agree that one has to be careful not to make too many assumptions in trying to find out the truth about man's ancient astronomy and history.

On the other hand, you do have to make some assumptions in order to arrive at workable hypotheses - subject to rigorous testing of course. If they don't work, well, then you throw out your old theories, check your assumptions and then try to formulate new hypotheses. You continue to move forward.

One thing that I do want to emphasize, however, is that my own research is definitely NOT political or religiously oriented - at least not consciously. I look on ALL of the world's religions and political doings with a great deal of distrust.

I myself am not Jewish, but I respect the Hebrew people, the Jewish tradition and the Christian heritage derived from the Judeo-Christian ethic which has played an integral part in the development of the modern Western world.

Already in ancient times the Hebrews were called "the People of the Book".

There are only about 14 million Jews on this planet - and yet they excel in nearly every field of modern human endeavor. We moderns know enough about genetics today to understand that this can not have occurred suddenly in our era - quite the contrary - those genes, and also the corresponding talents, will have been there a long time.

One of the most interesting pieces in this entire puzzle is the matter of genetic evidence.

We find the following written about Y-DNA Haplogroup J2 , the so-called "Phoenician gene", at the Wikipedia:

"Haplogroup J2 is widely believed to be associated with the spread of agriculture from the Mesopotamian regions of the Levant & Anatolia. The age of J2 has been estimated as 18,500 +/- 3,500 thousand years ago. Its distribution, centered in West Asia and Southeastern Europe, its association with the presence of Neolithic archaeological artifacts, such as figurines and painted pottery, and its association with annual precipitation have been interpreted as evidence that J2, and in particular its J2a-M410 subclade belonged to the agricultural innovators who followed the rainfall....

Haplogroup J2 is found mainly in the Fertile Crescent, the Mediterranean (including Southern Europe and North Africa), the Iranian plateau, and Central Asia. More specifically it is found in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Israel, Palestine, Greece, Italy and the eastern coasts of the Iberian Peninsula, and more frequently in Iraqis 29.7% ..., Lebanese 30% ..., Palestinians 16.8% ^..., Syrians 29%, Sephardic Jews 29% ....

According to Semino et al. and the National Geographic Genographic Project, the frequency of haplogroup J2 generally declines as one moves away from the Northern fertile crescent. Haplogroup J2 is carried by 6% of Europeans and its frequency drops dramatically as one moves northward away from the Mediterranean.

Another important fact about the distribution of Haplogroup J2 is that it appears to have dispersed from a Middle Eastern homeland to the west through a primarily maritime or littoral route, as it is found in high concentrations among the populations of the coasts of the Mediterranean Sea in both Eurasia and Africa, and particularly along the coasts of the eastern Mediterranean in Europe. This distribution may be more consonant with a Neolithic or post-Neolithic maritime dispersal from the Middle East, such as through Greek colonization or Phoenician commercial and colonial activities.


In Italy, J2 is found in about 19.3% of Italians ^[23]. Turkey is one of the countries with major J2 population. Approximately 24% of Turkish men are J2 according to a recent study.... Haplogroup J2 is also common in neighboring Greece, with regional frequencies ranging between 11% and 46%.


It has been proposed that haplogroup J2a-M410 was linked to populations on ancient Crete by examining the relationship between Anatolian, Cretan, and Greek populations from around early Neolithic sites. Haplogroup J2b-M12 was associated with Neolithic Greece (ca. 8500 - 4300 BCE) and was reported to be found in modern Crete (3.1%) and mainland Greece (Macedonia 7.0%, Thessaly 8.8%, Argolis 1.8%).

Sephardic Jews have about 29% of haplogroup J2^[1] and Ashkenazi Jews have 23%^[1], or 19%^[26]. It has been reported that a sample of Italian Cohensbelong to Network 1.2, a group of Y chromosomes characterized by avalue of the DYS413 marker less or equal to 18. This deletion has beenplaced in the J2a-M410 clade. However, other Jewish Cohens belong to haplogroup J1 (see Cohen modal haplotype).

J2 subclades are also found in the South Caucasus (Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan), Iran, Central Asia, and South Asia.

Haplogroup J2 has been shown to have a more northern distribution inthe Middle East, although it exists in significant amounts in thesouthern middle-east regions, a lesser amount of it was found whencompared to its brother haplogroup, J1, which has a high frequencysoutherly distribution. This suggests that, if the occurrence ofHaplogroup J among modern populations of Europe, Central Asia, andSouth Asia does reflect Neolithic demic diffusion from the Middle East, the source population is more likely to have originated from Anatolia, the Levant or northern Mesopotamia than from regions further south.

Haplogroup J2a-M410 in India is largely confined to the upper castes^[27]with little occurrence in the middle and lower castes and is completelyabsent from south Indian tribes and middle and lower castes.

J2b in most cases seems to be mostly limited to the Balkans/Eastern Europe and India."

At Cohen Modal Haplotype at the Wikipedia it is written:

"Y-chromosomal Aaron is the name given to the hypothesised most recent common ancestor of many of the patrilineal Jewish priestly caste known as KohanimKohane). In the Hebrew Bible this ancestor is identified as Aaron, the brother of Moses. Research published in 1997 and thereafter has indicated that some contemporary Jewish Kohanim share Y-chromosomal Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) with a set of genetic markers,known as the Cohen Modal Haplotype, which may well derive from a singlecommon ancestor. Later, in 2007, the same team announced that theyfound another common set of genetic marker related to present-day traditional Kohanim families in Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA). (singular "Kohen", "Cohen", or
Although membership in the Jewish community has, since at least the second century CE, been passed maternally (see: Who is a Jew?), membership in the group that originally comprised the Jewish priesthood ("Cohen" or "Kohen"; plural: Kohanim), is patrilineal. Modern Kohens claim descent from a biblical person, Aaron, brother of Moses,in the direct lineage from Levi, the patriarch of the Tribe of Levi,greatgrandson of Abraham, according to the tradition codified in the Tanakh (שמות / Sh'mot/Exodus 6). DNAtesting is aiding scholars to trace the lineages found among modernJewish populations, including contemporary Cohen families, to decipherorigins of the people groups that were joined to the ancient Israelites and to identify genetic admixture and genetic drift."
Khazaria.com points out that genetic studies have helped to draw the following conclusions:
"Advanced genetic testing ... of modern Jewish communities around the world, has helped to determine which of the communities are likely to descend from the Israelites and which are not ....

Key findings:

The main ethnic element of ... most ... modern Jewish populations of the world is Israelite. The Israelite haplotypes fall into Y-DNA haplogroups J and E.

Ashkenazim also descend, in a smaller way, from European peoples such as Slavs and Khazars. The non-Israelite Y-DNA haplogroups include Q (typically Central Asian) and R1a1 (typically Eastern European).

Dutch Jews from the Netherlands also descend from northwestern Europeans.

Sephardim also descend, in a smaller way, from various non-Israelite peoples.

Georgian Jews (Gruzinim) are a mix of Georgians and Israelites.

Yemenite Jews (Temanim) are a mix of Yemenite Arabs and Israelites.

Moroccan Jews, Algerian Jews, and Tunisian Jews are mainly Israelites.

Libyan Jews are mainly Israelites who may have mixed somewhat with Berbers.

Ethiopian Jews are almost exclusively Ethiopian, with little or no Israelite ancestry.

Bene Israel Jews and Cochin Jews of India have much Indian ancestry in their mtDNA.

Palestinian Arabs are probably partly Israelite...

Key findings:

Samaritans are descended from Israelite men and Assyrian women.

Those Lembas who possess the Cohen Modal Haplotype have Middle Eastern ancestry, possibly Jewish Cohen. The Buba clan is especially Middle Eastern in its paternal DNA.

Many Spanish-speaking Latinos of the American Southwest are descended from Anusim (Spanish Jews who were forced to convert to Catholicism).

The Mizo people of northeastern India, the self-styled "B'nei Menashe", have no proven genetic connection to the Israelites....Rabbi Harold M. Schulweis explains the nature of Judaism: "One of the unique aspects of Judaism is its rejection of Judaism as a biological entity, an inherited spiritual DNA, racial or ethnic. The point is that being a Jew is not a matter of genes and chromosomes. To the contrary,Judaism is the first religion to recognize the 'ger', the stranger who chooses to identify himself with Judaism. Judaism is not rooted in race or clan or in a genetic matter but a religious tradition of choice."

The answer is that Jews are a religion and a civilization, but not a race or singular ethnic group (the latter two definitions marginalize proselytes). As Rabbi Rami Shapiro said: "There is only one response to Who is a Jew? that works: A Jew is one who takes Judaism seriously. One who takes Judaism seriously studies it, argues with it, and lives it."The proper name of the separate ethnic group that most Jews descend from is Israelite."

Some Comments on Hebrew Calendration and Kings and Dynasties - LexiLine Journal 520

Hebrew Calendration

1. If the Hebrews have a calendar which they trace back to nearly 3800 BC, then they will have had an astronomy system at that early time.

2. I am fairly sure that this calendar originated at Gobekli Tepe, near Ur(fa), birthplace of Abraham. Gobekli Tepe is north of Haran.

3. The Hebrews brought the calendric system with them to Egypt, where, according to my decipherments, they were the pharaohs of Egypt (the tomb of Tutankhamun features the two enemies of Egypt on the prow of a ship - the native peoples of Africa and the Asiatics - but the Hebrews are not pictured, so they are identical with the Pharaohs). e.g. King Saul was Akhenaten, King David was Sethos and King Solomon was Ramses II, with Shishak as Ramses III. This is all quite clearly apparent.

4. The Pharaonic dynasties are astronomically based and calculated, as I show in Kings and Dynasties (but see the update below to see that this book is now outdated and inaccurate and not be used). The oldest of these Pharaohs are the Biblical Patriarchs.

5. In those ancient days, longer periods of time, such as the realms of kings, were measured by the stars , and that is the basic theory of Kings and Dynasties. This is not a "code" at all. It is just the way that time was calculated in ancient eras, in addition to using the Sun and the Moon - the "Sun" name of a Pharaoh was his RA name and the "Moon" name of a Pharaoh was his AMUN name.

6. The Old Testament is an actual history of ca. 3800 BC to the year 0, but much of the Bible is nevertheless astronomically-based chronology, e.g. Chronicles, Kings.

7. The Book of Enoch is in fact a very detailed ancient Hebrew astronomy, but it was not included in the modern Bible by laymen when put together in the modern era - the exclusion of the astronomical Book of Enoch from the modern Bible was an error. You have to have astronomy if you want chronology.

In other words, there is in fact a LOT of astronomy in the Bible and the so-called apochryphal texts, such as the Book of Enoch, which has developed over thousands of years.
______________

I received some correspondence about Kings and Dynasties and here is the current state of affairs about that publication.

Kings and Dynasties is a problematical publication of mine and it should currently not be used for chronological study.

It contained a number of first insights about the way that stars were used for chronology in ancient days, but it can no longer be considered to be accurate.

The basic stellar rising and setting system used is right, and was also used by the Sumerians as well, but my data as to specific stars for the Patriarchs is wrong.

When I came up with this system many years ago, I used a simple planisphere taken from the back pocket of Whitney's Starfinder by which one can follow the rising and setting of stars quite simply on the horizons. Simple enough - but, as I have found out in the interim - wrong in my application.

One CAN NOT use a normal planisphere for this work.

In the interim, I use the portable plastic "Precession of the Equinoxes Historical Planisphere" by Milton D. Heifetz which he produced together with astronomy prof Owen Gingerich of Harvard. It used to be the case that this could be ordered as Milton D. Heifetz's Historical Planisphere with Precession of the Equinoxes (created with consultation from Owen Gingrich of Harvard) from Learning Technologies, Inc., 40 Cameron Avenue, Somerville, MA, 02144 USA, internet at http://www.starlab.com, e-mail at starlab@starlab.com, phone at 800-537-8703, 617-628-1459, and fax 617-628-8606. THIS HAS CHANGED and it is now being sold through ScienceFirst at http://www.sciencefirst.com/vw_prdct_mdl.asp?mdl_cd=6540155.

The Heifetz Planisphere adjusts for precession of the equinoxes and it also shows "undistorted images of the constellations along its periphery - " exactly as they appear in the real sky." Most softward astronomy programs are unable to do that. The cost of that HISTORICAL PLANISPHERE is $11.95.

There are two such planispheres by Heifetz and I have both, one for the Northern Heavens and one for the Southern Heavens, and although both are essential for world megalithic and calendric study I no longer am able to find the one for the Southern Heavens at ScienceFirst - probably not enough commercial demand for it - but you might ask them if they still have it for sale in their product archives somewhere.

The setting of the Heifetz Planisphere for the Northern Heavens is at 30 degrees North latitutde - which is close enough for my purposes - but I have discovered since then that the system of rising and setting stars for the Biblical Patriarchs was surely conceived originally at Gobekli Tepe (just north of Haran) at between 37 and 38 degrees North latitude. See my posting at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/LexiLine/message/1775 for more information.

Although the positions of the stars in the heavens are fixed, their rising and setting ARE NOT FIXED and in fact this differs from era to era because of precession of the equinoxes. Because of the wobbly rotation of the North Pole around the Ecliptic Pole in about 26,000 years, this results in the heavens "rising" or "falling", depending on the phase of the wobble in which the Earth is found, and this also "raises" or "lowers" the stars respective to the viewer on Earth. This also GREATLY affects which stars are rising and setting at any given time in any era and is surely the reason the ancients ultimately abandoned this system as a means of telling time.

Accordingly, although the principle of using the rising and setting stars for chronology of the lives of the Biblical Patriarchs is sound, the only way to get the correct stellar results for rising and setting stars is to set the Heifetz Planisphere at the same date at which this system was actually recorded for posterity - this need not be the date of origin - and I have been working on that - but it is by no means finished.

In any case, my publication Kings & Dynasies can be archived.
______________

Joseph wrote:

It's unbelievable how knowledgeable you are about these things.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
Where does one begin in learning to master stars and history?
______________

Andis Kaulins replied:

Thank you for your kind words, but as you can see from my own comments about my
book Kings & Dynasites, this entire area of research is fraught with difficulty.
One reason that most mainstream scholars detour around megalithic research, for
example, is surely that it is too full of pitfalls. Too little is known, too
much is unknown.

Moreover, I am more traditional in my approach than you might suspect. As
regards your question about learning astronomy and history, I would recommend to
anyone wishing to master astronomy or history that they enroll in the
corresponding courses at educational institutions of their choice. There they
will learn the basics, from which they can then expand on their own, if they are
willing - and able.

It is for example the case in my theories that I am not trying to supplant our
institutions or our learning. Rather, I am bombarding established academia with
questions that they have have been ignoring and I am putting into doubt accepted
theories that have no basis in probative fact. Someone has to do it and fate has
somehow put me in this position. We all have our destiny.

6 billion now and soon 7 billion human beings are like a giant swarm of bees or
a massive ant hill. Or, as Pink Floyd sings, you are just another brick in the
wall, even if your bank account says that you are worth billions or if you are
the head of a country. It applies to all humanity - we are all just part of a
gigantic human "project".

I mean that positively.
______________

Magnus Munn wrote:

This is an area of intense interest and (from what I've seen) seems to border
closely with political agendas. The fabric of ancient history has been written
very hastily and with a great deal of emphasis on the notions of biblical
authority ie: whoever wrote the oldest documents - the bible - must also be the
oldest race. In my investigations into archaeological and anthropological
discoveries both recent and established, I've found that quite the opposite is
true.

The Hebrews have the appearance of antiquity only because of their conquest of
older races. They did not possess an advanced system of astronomy or writing,
they inherited them; the original settlers of Canaan after the flood arrived by
sea and migrated from Anatolia. Egypt was conquered and civilized by these sea
same foreigners, as was Sumer and Harrappa - they all arrived by sea.

At the time of Pre-Dynastic Egypt (5000-3300 BC) the indigenous tribesmen,
including the Semites, were no match for these people at first, who had brought
with them an already advanced language, military and seafaring skill and
technology, system of astronomy, and monotheist spirituality.

But as it can be seen in the Old Testament which is an account of far more
recent times, the business of the Hebrew tribes was to utterly wipe out the
Caananites, which they did. The thing is, not only did they wipe them out, but
they immediately assumed the knowledge and antiquity of their victims for their
own.

If you do any amount of research into the history of the Phoenicians
(Canaanites), it becomes obvious that Hebrew is not a root culture, nor is it
even a root language. Hebrews were to the Canaanites as the Romans were to the
Greeks.

The ancient astronomy that the Hebrews took ownership of was never maintained,
or advanced. In terms of its use, it actually devolved to a sidereal system
where constellations were thought to never change position. Its earlier form was
the more sophisticated tropical system which accounted for precession of
equinoxes. The reason for this was that they simply had no use for it - the
Semitic tribesmen were not seafarers by practice or by ancestry.

My main point here is, there are vast, vast assumptions being made about who is
who in ancient history and prehistory, and it deserves to be revisited without
biblical spectacles on, so that things can be seen from a wider view.
______________

Andis Kaulins replied:

The terms Semite and Semitic were first coined by the German historian August Ludwig von Schlözer only in the modern era in the year 1781 to designate the progeny of Shem of the Bible, so that if we speak about Semites or talk about Semitic language, we are still quite "stuck" to the Bible in our conversation and our concepts, even if we try to avoid that Bible.

In any case, I think that any serious researcher would agree that one has to be careful not to make too many assumptions in trying to find out the truth about man's ancient astronomy and history.

On the other hand, you do have to make some assumptions in order to arrive at workable hypotheses - subject to rigorous testing of course. If they don't work, well, then you throw out your old theories, check your assumptions and then try to formulate new hypotheses. You continue to move forward.

One thing that I do want to emphasize, however, is that my own research is definitely NOT poltiical or religiously oriented - at least not consciously. I look on ALL of the world's religions and political doings with a great deal of distrust.

I myself am not Jewish, but I respect the Hebrew people, the Jewish tradition and the Christian heritage derived from the Judeo-Christian ethic which has played an integral part in the development of the modern Western world.

Already in ancient times the Hebrews were called "the People of the Book".

There are only about 14 million Jews on this planet - and yet they excel in nearly every field of modern human endeavor. We moderns know enough about genetics today to understand that this can not have occurred suddenly in our era - quite the contrary - those genes, and also the corresponding talents, will have been there a long time.

One of the most interesting pieces in this entire puzzle is the matter of genetic evidence.

We find the following written about Y-DNA Haplogroup J2 , the so-called "Phoenician gene", at the Wikipedia:

"Haplogroup J2 is widely believed to be associated with the spread of agriculture from the Mesopotamian regions of the Levant & Anatolia. The age of J2 has been estimated as 18,500 +/- 3,500 thousand years ago. Its distribution, centered in West Asia and Southeastern Europe, its association with the presence of Neolithic archaeological artifacts, such as figurines and painted pottery, and its association with annual precipitationhave been interpreted as evidence that J2, and in particular itsJ2a-M410 subclade belonged to the agricultural innovators who followedthe rainfall....

Haplogroup J2 is found mainly in the Fertile Crescent, the Mediterranean (including Southern Europe and North Africa), the Iranian plateau, and Central Asia. More specifically it is found in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Israel, Palestine, Greece, Italy and the eastern coasts of the Iberian Peninsula, and more frequently in Iraqis 29.7% ..., Lebanese 30% ..., Palestinians 16.8% ^..., Syrians 29%, Sephardic Jews 29% .... According to Semino et al. and the National Geographic Genographic Project,the frequency of haplogroup J2 generally declines as one moves awayfrom the Northern fertile crescent. Haplogroup J2 is carried by 6% ofEuropeans and its frequency drops dramatically as one moves northwardaway from the Mediterranean.

Another important fact about the distribution of Haplogroup J2 is that it appears to have dispersed from a Middle Easternhomeland to the west through a primarily maritime or littoral route, asit is found in high concentrations among the populations of the coastsof the Mediterranean Seain both Eurasia and Africa, and particularly along the coasts of theeastern Mediterranean in Europe. This distribution may be moreconsonant with a Neolithic or post-Neolithic maritime dispersal fromthe Middle East, such as through Greek colonization or Phoenician commercial and colonial activities.

In Italy, J2 is found in about 19.3% of Italians ^[23]. Turkey is one of the countries with major J2 population. Approximately 24% of Turkish men are J2 according to a recent study.... Haplogroup J2 is also common in neighboring Greece, withregional frequencies ranging between 11% and 46%.

It has been proposed that haplogroup J2a-M410 was linked to populations on ancient Crete by examining the relationship between Anatolian, Cretan, and Greek. Haplogroup J2b-M12 was associated with Neolithic Greece (ca. 8500 - 4300 BCE) and was reported to be found in modern Crete (3.1%) and mainland Greece (Macedonia 7.0%, Thessaly 8.8%, Argolis 1.8%). populations from around early Neolithic sites

Sephardic Jews have about 29% of haplogroup J2^[1] and Ashkenazi Jews have 23%^[1], or 19%^[26]. It has been reported that a sample of Italian Cohensbelong to Network 1.2, a group of Y chromosomes characterized by avalue of the DYS413 marker less or equal to 18. This deletion has beenplaced in the J2a-M410 clade. However, other Jewish Cohens belong to haplogroup J1 (see Cohen modal haplotype).

J2 subclades are also found in the South Caucasus (Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan), Iran, Central Asia, and South Asia.

Haplogroup J2 has been shown to have a more northern distribution inthe Middle East, although it exists in significant amounts in thesouthern middle-east regions, a lesser amount of it was found whencompared to its brother haplogroup, J1, which has a high frequencysoutherly distribution. This suggests that, if the occurrence ofHaplogroup J among modern populations of Europe, Central Asia, andSouth Asia does reflect Neolithic demic diffusion from the Middle East, the source population is more likely to have originated from Anatolia, the Levant or northern Mesopotamia than from regions further south.

Haplogroup J2a-M410 in India is largely confined to the upper castes^[27]with little occurrence in the middle and lower castes and is completelyabsent from south Indian tribes and middle and lower castes.

J2b in most cases seems to be mostly limited to the Balkans/Eastern Europe and India."

At Cohen Modal Haplotype at the Wikipedia it is written:

"Y-chromosomal Aaron is the name given to the hypothesised most recent common ancestor of many of the patrilineal Jewish priestly caste known as KohanimKohane). In the Hebrew Bible this ancestor is identified as Aaron, the brother of Moses. Research published in 1997 and thereafter has indicated that some contemporary Jewish Kohanim share Y-chromosomal Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) with a set of genetic markers,known as the Cohen Modal Haplotype, which may well derive from a singlecommon ancestor. Later, in 2007, the same team announced that theyfound another common set of genetic marker related to present-day traditional Kohanim families in Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA). (singular "Kohen", "Cohen", or

Although membership in the Jewish community has, since at least the second century CE, been passed maternally (see: Who is a Jew?), membership in the group that originally comprised the Jewish priesthood ("Cohen" or "Kohen"; plural: Kohanim), is patrilineal. Modern Kohens claim descent from a biblical person, Aaron, brother of Moses,in the direct lineage from Levi, the patriarch of the Tribe of Levi,greatgrandson of Abraham, according to the tradition codified in the Tanakh (שמות / Sh'mot/Exodus 6). DNAtesting is aiding scholars to trace the lineages found among modernJewish populations, including contemporary Cohen families, to decipherorigins of the people groups that were joined to the ancient Israelites and to identify genetic admixture and genetic drift."

Khazaria.com points out that genetic studies have helped to draw the following conclusions:

"Advanced genetic testing ... of modern Jewish communities around the world, has helped to determine which of the communities are likely to descend from the Israelites and which are not ....

Key findings:

The main ethnic element of ... most ... modern Jewish populations of the world is Israelite. The Israelite haplotypes fall into Y-DNA haplogroups J and E.

Ashkenazim also descend, in a smaller way, from European peoples such as Slavs and Khazars. The non-Israelite Y-DNA haplogroups include Q (typically Central Asian) and R1a1 (typically Eastern European).

Dutch Jews from the Netherlands also descend from northwestern Europeans.

Sephardim also descend, in a smaller way, from various non-Israelite peoples.

Georgian Jews (Gruzinim) are a mix of Georgians and Israelites.

Yemenite Jews (Temanim) are a mix of Yemenite Arabs and Israelites.

Moroccan Jews, Algerian Jews, and Tunisian Jews are mainly Israelites.

Libyan Jews are mainly Israelites who may have mixed somewhat with Berbers.

Ethiopian Jews are almost exclusively Ethiopian, with little or no Israelite ancestry.

Bene Israel Jews and Cochin Jews of India have much Indian ancestry in their mtDNA.

Palestinian Arabs are probably partly Israelite...

Key findings:

Samaritans are descended from Israelite men and Assyrian women.

Those Lembas who possess the Cohen Modal Haplotype have Middle Eastern ancestry, possibly Jewish Cohen. The Buba clan is especially Middle Eastern in its paternal DNA.

Many Spanish-speaking Latinos of the American Southwest are descended from Anusim (Spanish Jews who were forced to convert to Catholicism).

The Mizo people of northeastern India, the self-styled "B'nei Menashe", have no proven genetic connection to the Israelites....Rabbi Harold M. Schulweis explains the nature of Judaism: "One of the unique aspects of Judaism is its rejection of Judaism as a biological entity, an inherited spiritual DNA, racial or ethnic. The point is that being a Jew is not a matter of genes and chromosomes. To the contrary,Judaism is the first religion to recognize the 'ger', the stranger who chooses to identify himself with Judaism. Judaism is not rooted in race or clan or in a genetic matter but a religious tradition of choice."

The answer is that Jews are a religion and a civilization, but not a race or singular ethnic group (the latter two definitions marginalize proselytes). As Rabbi Rami Shapiro said: "There is only one response to Who is a Jew? that works: A Jew is one who takes Judaism seriously. One who takes Judaism seriously studies it, argues with it, and lives it."The proper name of the separate ethnic group that most Jews descend from is Israelite."