Göbleki Tepe ‘decoded’

[Swede]

23 hours ago, Orestes_3113 said:

Because perhaps they are unwilling to read. You say interesting but you aren't really interested...

.

Look if you really want to understand then you need to take the concept as a whole and start with Abraham from there you can work upstream and downstream. His date of birth is 27th of Feb 1953 BCE (Jul) as described in the book of Jasher Chapter 8. Of course you would say this is not credible and I would agree one source is not credible. But if you seen the phenomenon in the sky then that might spur some curiosity. Work down the genealogy as I have mentioned and you will see that the flood is adequately described in the Bible. Same for many other events.

The fact that these passages describe events at a certain time, and that at these times similar phenomena are visible in the night sky greatly reduces the chances of it being coincidental. Then you would say sure but that is simply confirmation bias, you see what you want to see... and I would say have you even looked? And you would then come up with nonsense about how it could not be or whatever. but the answer is no. You don't look, you don't want to see you like the blinders. Or you don't know how, or worse don't know how to ask.

I am very forthcoming in this if you simply ask what you want to know, instead you are telling me nonsense about how things cannot be. and I'm like .

My interest could only be addressed with credible and supportable data. Still waiting.

.

[Herbert Sanders]

1 minute ago, Swede said:

My interest could only be addressed with credible and supportable data. Still waiting.

.

An artist makes art and infuses some ideas. Another artist comes by and picks up on the info although questionable it makes sense to him. Scientist comes by, meh simply paint on a piece of cloth...

Also who are you to judge, this is not the time to judge anything. This time is about absorbing the presentation. You know food for thought. So quick to dismiss... tsk... tsk...

[Swede]

20 hours ago, Orestes_3113 said:

What does this have to do with anything? And what exactly is the non-argument?

Im simply demonstrating. The only argument that I have is with you guys who don't get this simple idea. Why would one need "climatological, hydrological, and cultural events/activities" did I make claims in this area?

Who cares man, you are making things overly complicated. It is really simple, prehistoric man used stones and scripture to capture the stars for their purpose. This can be shown/demonstrated. You just go and keep digging in the dirt good luck to ya.

Lol, well it takes two to tango.

1) You perpetually admit that you are quite selective in your source material so as to bolster your fantasy. Bad science. As to non-argument, the term is self explanatory.

2) Your "simple idea" is merely idle, unsupported speculation. In order to support your idle speculation you will need reams of credible corroborative data. Human activities do not occur in a vacuum.

3) Credible data still awaited.

4) This is not a tango. More reminiscent of a waltz. The last one.

.

 

 

[cormac mac airt]

12 minutes ago, Orestes_3113 said:

An artist makes art and infuses some ideas. Another artist comes by and picks up on the info although questionable it makes sense to him. Scientist comes by, meh simply paint on a piece of cloth...

Also who are you to judge, this is not the time to judge anything. This time is about absorbing the presentation. You know food for thought. So quick to dismiss... tsk... tsk...

Half of nothing is STILL nothing. 
 

cormac

[Swede]

10 minutes ago, Orestes_3113 said:

An artist makes art and infuses some ideas. Another artist comes by and picks up on the info although questionable it makes sense to him. Scientist comes by, meh simply paint on a piece of cloth...

Also who are you to judge, this is not the time to judge anything. This time is about absorbing the presentation. You know food for thought. So quick to dismiss... tsk... tsk...

More empty rhetoric. Your "topic" deals with matters of science. Thus, scientific scrutiny is naturally applicable.

Absorbing the presentation? Oh, my.

.

[docyabut2]

its said that the Architecture buildings is connected to another .Göbleki Tepe is connected to Çatalhöyük Nevalı Çori,Çayönü and to

 in spain

[Herbert Sanders]

18 minutes ago, Swede said:

More empty rhetoric. Your "topic" deals with matters of science. Thus, scientific scrutiny is naturally applicable.

Absorbing the presentation? Oh, my.

.

And where science fails to get grasp new ideas human intuition fills. Science is very slow moving. Much like the legal process. Investigations however are fast moving and often privately done. I've mentioned before and I'll say it again with GT things are a bit softer but moving into Biblical history things will get more concreate. It will always be a combination of skies/written accounts but the accounts are numerous and they all point to the same underlying methodology.  But I guess that would still be nothing to you... but there are more readers out there. Sometimes popular opinion can embrace truth where science cannot. Which leads me to the question why put so much faith in science? You have a brain don't you? Science is just a tool.

Edited September 16, 2020 by Orestes_3113

[Hanslune]

45 minutes ago, Orestes_3113 said:

Again the Hebrew flood was a calendar synchronization event. It has zero implication on earth, no drop of water came from the sky, zero!

What? Ah, so the Bible OT and NT were just written so you could know when a non-flood didn't occur?

 

Quote

When I go to the movies and I see a trailer then I can figure out what kind of movie it is. The trailer is perhaps 3 minutes long, the movies 90+ that is 3.3 % in cut images. There are many YT commenters that are discussing trailers why shouldn't we be able to discuss GT?

Oh,  so when you saw the Sixth Sense trailer did you understand it and the ending prior to seeing it?

 

[docyabut2]

https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/first-pictorial-representation-gobekli-tepe-found-003862

[Herbert Sanders]

4 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

What? Ah, so the Bible OT and NT were just written so you could know when a non-flood didn't occur?

The story can be layered. Much like the creation of Adam and Even was mentioned twice. It is a framework for a story that is worth retelling. For what reason I don't know. If a flood occurred then my guess would be that it happened long before 2243 BCE!

6 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Oh,  so when you saw the Sixth Sense trailer did you understand it and the ending prior to seeing it?

And even after the movie I did not understand the techniques involved, or the ordeals that the team went through. There is so much that I will never know. But I am not focusing on what I do not know. I focus on what I do know and it starts with Abraham 1953 BCE, it is a fact that the birth of Abraham is connected to this very rare celestial event of Feb 27th. However it has not yet been accepted. I can continue on this subject on show you how this works and where this line of reasoning has been applied elsewhere. But Abraham's birth is the heart of it all.

[Herbert Sanders]

33 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/first-pictorial-representation-gobekli-tepe-found-003862

interesting angle

I misread that pictorial at first glance. nevertheless I will keep a closer eye on pillars 12,14, 21. obviously playing around here .

also will look a bit further into these soul holes.

 

Edited September 16, 2020 by Orestes_3113

[docyabut2]

1 hour ago, Orestes_3113 said:

interesting angle

I misread that pictorial at first glance. nevertheless I will keep a closer eye on pillars 12,14, 21. obviously playing around here .

also will look a bit further into these soul holes.

 

sorry don't believe in Andrew Collins theories of astrology , but those holes are of a  symbolism of  the anchors that are traveling on water . 

 

 https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ancient+anchors+holes&qpvt=anient+anchors+holes&form=IGRE&first=1&scenario=ImageBasicHover

Edited September 16, 2020 by docyabut2

[jaylemurph]

3 hours ago, Orestes_3113 said:

The story can be layered. Much like the creation of Adam and Even was mentioned twice. It is a framework for a story that is worth retelling. 

The framework for the (Christian) Bible is man’s descent into sin and his redemption through Christ. Period. 

Any reading you devise (and I concede at least the possibility of your reading being correct) is secondary to that. 

It might be different for the Tanakh — I concede I’m no expert in Jewish Studies —but I feel like if your subtext was there, the Rabbis would have found it long ago. The idea you know how to interpret the Bible better than them is a mighty hard sell and near-as-damn-it to saying the Jews don’t understand their own holy book. And that’s as fraught with disturbing racial overtones as saying brown folk can’t build monumental architecture on their own...

—Jaylemurph 

[Herbert Sanders]

10 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

The framework for the (Christian) Bible is man’s descent into sin and his redemption through Christ. Period. 

Any reading you devise (and I concede at least the possibility of your reading being correct) is secondary to that. 

It might be different for the Tanakh — I concede I’m no expert in Jewish Studies —but I feel like if your subtext was there, the Rabbis would have found it long ago. The idea you know how to interpret the Bible better than them is a mighty hard sell and near-as-damn-it to saying the Jews don’t understand their own holy book. And that’s as fraught with disturbing racial overtones as saying brown folk can’t build monumental architecture on their own...

—Jaylemurph 

What I say does not take away from the Bible. When I say stories are used as frameworks to layer it with meanings or information. This doesnt take anything away from the myths. The myths themselves are constructs that have been intelligently applied.

The readings I devise are only taken from a very specific angle which has to do with dates and phenomena. I can go a few more layers but I do not profess to understand the document for 100%.

Me saying they are wrong follows from my confidence in being right. Simple as that. Does that mean they are wrong in everything? No, it simply means they are demonstrably wrong in dating the stories. And in everything that follows from it. But this is also where it ends, the scope is very limited, although it runs a bit deeper than merely dates/phenomena, different subject.

Edited September 17, 2020 by Orestes_3113

[jaylemurph]

4 minutes ago, Orestes_3113 said:

Me saying they are wrong follows from my confidence in being right.

I have some rather disturbing news about your mother, Œdipus.

—Jaylemurph 

[Herbert Sanders]

2 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

I have some rather disturbing news about your mother, Œdipus.

—Jaylemurph 

No need to get into my personal life. Although I have considered changing the screenname to that nick haha. But I kept it at the line of Atreus.

[Hanslune]

7 hours ago, Orestes_3113 said:

The story can be layered. Much like the creation of Adam and Even was mentioned twice. It is a framework for a story that is worth retelling. For what reason I don't know. If a flood occurred then my guess would be that it happened long before 2243 BCE!

Here is the question I asked: What? Ah, so the Bible OT and NT were just written so you could know when a non-flood didn't occur?"  You avoided it. Look Orestes if you want to avoid questions you cannot answer just say so. Reply with BS and that won't work because from this point I will repeat the question until you honestly answer it.

Try honesty not BS.

so the Bible OT and NT were just written so you could know when a non-flood didn't occur?"

...and why would God and or the people who wrote it do that? Why would they care about YOU knowing a specific date?

 

Quote

And even after the movie I did not understand the techniques involved, or the ordeals that the team went through. There is so much that I will never know. But I am not focusing on what I do not know. I focus on what I do know and it starts with Abraham 1953 BCE, it is a fact that the birth of Abraham is connected to this very rare celestial event of Feb 27th. However it has not yet been accepted. I can continue on this subject on show you how this works and where this line of reasoning has been applied elsewhere. But Abraham's birth is the heart of it all.

Here is what I asked: Oh,  so when you saw the Sixth Sense trailer did you understand it and the ending prior to seeing it?  Again you avoided answering it so I'll take it you didn't figure it out.

Your previous exampled was also deeply flawed. A trailer is made by an expert using specific pieces of information to give an idea about the movie - it isn't random. What do you think a random trailer made from random bits of the movie might tell you - not a whole lot?

The 6% from GT is RANDOM - so what you have is you making stuff up...

[Herbert Sanders]

3 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Here is the question I asked: What? Ah, so the Bible OT and NT were just written so you could know when a non-flood didn't occur?"  You avoided it. Look Orestes if you want to avoid questions you cannot answer just say so. Reply with BS and that won't work because from this point I will repeat the question until you honestly answer it.

Try honesty not BS.

so the Bible OT and NT were just written so you could know when a non-flood didn't occur?"

...and why would God and or the people who wrote it do that? Why would they care about YOU knowing a specific date?

The Bible doesnt give that information so we can only guess. However the story is structured in such a way that the output yields a set of dates. That is a fact!

My guess, because it is a year that has a 13th month, is that the story is an anchor point in time as seems to have been common with many myths (i.e. Romulus/Remus another anchor myth in the style of Cain/Able).

The story of the flood was perhaps rehashed. Much like an additional pump in a long pipe. Where the pipelenght is the time that needs to crossed and the flow of substance is the information. Why? Maybe the flood story was seen as important? Why? To entertain children I do not know.

What do I know then?

That the story is structured in such way that we can deduce a set of dates. The rest is speculation. For what reason? Unknown.

3 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Here is what I asked: Oh,  so when you saw the Sixth Sense trailer did you understand it and the ending prior to seeing it?  Again you avoided answering it so I'll take it you didn't figure it out.

Your previous exampled was also deeply flawed. A trailer is made by an expert using specific pieces of information to give an idea about the movie - it isn't random. What do you think a random trailer made from random bits of the movie might tell you - not a whole lot?

The 6% from GT is RANDOM - so what you have is you making stuff up...

Try pattern recognition, it is a natural feature that your mind possesses. GT is obviously not random lol. Unless you do not care to digest, like a toddler denying a spoon whilst being fed. You need to taste and swallow... instead you simply claim 'random' and the argument ends there.

I claim pattern and show a pattern.

You dont look, close your eyes and ears and pollute the communication by saying NANANANANANANANAANANNANANNANANANANANANAANANANANNANNANA

Random

NANAANNANANAANANNANNNNNANNNANANANANANANANNAANNAANANANA

RANDOM

Can't argue with a child.

Edited September 17, 2020 by Orestes_3113

[Herbert Sanders]

10 hours ago, docyabut2 said:

sorry don't believe in Andrew Collins theories of astrology , but those holes are of a  symbolism of  the anchors that are traveling on water . 

 

 https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ancient+anchors+holes&qpvt=anient+anchors+holes&form=IGRE&first=1&scenario=ImageBasicHover

That is fitting though as these astrology based myths are anchor points. I'm not familiar with Andrew Collins other than the links you have provided.

[Trelane]

Looked at the "Gobekli Tepe as an Observatory" web pages. Most are the exact same items regurgitated and highly speculative at best. Nothing is even remotely supported by archaeologists who have been to,or have been working at the site.

All that being said,the rubbish being thrown around by the OP is laughable when taken in totality.

[Swede]

On 9/16/2020 at 4:08 PM, Orestes_3113 said:

And where science fails to get grasp new ideas human intuition fills. Science is very slow moving. Much like the legal process. Investigations however are fast moving and often privately done. I've mentioned before and I'll say it again with GT things are a bit softer but moving into Biblical history things will get more concreate. It will always be a combination of skies/written accounts but the accounts are numerous and they all point to the same underlying methodology.  But I guess that would still be nothing to you... but there are more readers out there. Sometimes popular opinion can embrace truth where science cannot. Which leads me to the question why put so much faith in science? You have a brain don't you? Science is just a tool.

1) "Human intuition" is hardly infallible. In reality, it is quite fallible.

2) Yes, science can be rather slow moving. The inherent methodologies are designed so as to avoid the fallibility of human intuition.

3) Yes, the scientific method can be considered a tool. A tool that, when executed properly, can be utilized to verify or disprove various fantasies and idle speculations.

As previously mentioned (and apparently admitted to), you are in the "human intuition"/idle speculation phases. Without credible and supportable scientific data, your wasting of bandwidth will remain far on the back-burners of the understandings of the human past.

.

. 

[Herbert Sanders]

1 hour ago, Swede said:

1) "Human intuition" is hardly infallible. In reality, it is quite fallible.

Nothing is infallible

1 hour ago, Swede said:

2) Yes, science can be rather slow moving. The inherent methodologies are designed so as to avoid the fallibility of human intuition.

Theories only last until they are falsified. Scientific method or the method of madness they are tools to approximate truth.

1 hour ago, Swede said:

3) Yes, the scientific method can be considered a tool. A tool that, when executed properly, can be utilized to verify or disprove various fantasies and idle speculations.

Too bad it isn't applied here. Here is how you can when it comes to the Bible..

Let's make it simple and use these 6 steps (simple google result)

https://www.thoughtco.com/steps-of-the-scientific-method-p2-606045

1 question, 2 research, 3 hypothesis, 4 experiment, 5 data/analysis, 6 conclusion.

1 Could the Bible reflect astronomical phenomena within scripture? 2 Abraham/Phenomena connection, Confirmation of date, Confirmation of book of Jasher 3 a Major Biblical events are linked to astronomical phenomena. b the concept crosses cultural borders 4 Go through genealogy and major events (i.e. Cain/Able, Noah, Abraham/Isaac/Jacob, cross culturally Romulus/Remus) observe the skies of those periods 5 analyze the data, cross reference etc. make sure to exclude confirmation bias as much as possible. confirm commonly used terms etc 6 Accept hypothesis.

2 hours ago, Swede said:

As previously mentioned (and apparently admitted to), you are in the "human intuition"/idle speculation phases. Without credible and supportable scientific data, your wasting of bandwidth will remain far on the back-burners of the understandings of the human past.

As long as you are having fun I am ok with whatever opinion you hold..

[Hanslune]

17 hours ago, Orestes_3113 said:

The Bible doesnt give that information so we can only guess. However the story is structured in such a way that the output yields a set of dates. That is a fact!

No that is something you've claimed - did I miss your placing your research and data here? Nope you have refused to do so saying we have to wait months while you make up more stuff

 

Quote

My guess, because it is a year that has a 13th month, is that the story is an anchor point in time as seems to have been common with many myths (i.e. Romulus/Remus another anchor myth in the style of Cain/Able).

The story of the flood was perhaps rehashed. Much like an additional pump in a long pipe. Where the pipelenght is the time that needs to crossed and the flow of substance is the information. Why? Maybe the flood story was seen as important? Why? To entertain children I do not know.

What do I know then?

That the story is structured in such way that we can deduce a set of dates. The rest is speculation. For what reason? Unknown.
 

No idea what you are babbling about

 

Quote

Try pattern recognition, it is a natural feature that your mind possesses. GT is obviously not random lol. Unless you do not care to digest, like a toddler denying a spoon whilst being fed. You need to taste and swallow... instead you simply claim 'random' and the argument ends there.

I claim pattern and show a pattern.

You dont look, close your eyes and ears and pollute the communication by saying NANANANANANANANAANANNANANNANANANANANANAANANANANNANNANA

Random

NANAANNANANAANANNANNNNNANNNANANANANANANANNAANNAANANANA

RANDOM

Can't argue with a child.

I see you are playing dumb okay we'll make it so simple even you can't lie your way out of it

Question how big is the Gobekli Tepe site?

Question what percentage of that estimated site have we excavated?

What percentage is that? About six percent

You can see where they have excavated and not - can you state that these are the important bits? No you cannot not. Can you say these excavated sites contain enough information to determine the pattern of the other 94% - nope.

For information knowledge these excavations are random, based on a series of test pits which some were then expanded on for archaeological reasons.

You are attempting to say there is  a 'pattern' to be seen in those four parts that holds for the entire site. Speculation as you data is scattered and randomly located across the site.

That is speculation as the sites found are random pieces of data from a site that is 94% unknown to you and everyone else.

Now try to understand that or have someone else that you trust explain it to you, like a child - they would understand, have them read it to you slowly, then question you until the ideas sinks in. Great eh.

If necessary we can explain it again using crayons.

lol, you can speculate all you want but you don't remotely have enough information to make a conclusion.

 

 

 

 

[Herbert Sanders]

6 hours ago, Hanslune said:

No that is something you've claimed - did I miss your placing your research and data here? Nope you have refused to do so saying we have to wait months while you make up more stuff

Been there before. Even if I present data the reaction would be the same. Not wanting to look... So I'll take my time to make up more stuff to explain the data.

6 hours ago, Hanslune said:

No idea what you are babbling about

That is ok, perhaps in the future.

6 hours ago, Hanslune said:

I see you are playing dumb okay we'll make it so simple even you can't lie your way out of it

Question how big is the Gobekli Tepe site?

Question what percentage of that estimated site have we excavated?

What percentage is that? About six percent

You can see where they have excavated and not - can you state that these are the important bits? No you cannot not. Can you say these excavated sites contain enough information to determine the pattern of the other 94% - nope.

Doesn't matter if the bits are important or not. Perhaps the astronomy section of their 'society' was small and nobody really cared, the sky scrapers might have been somewhere else. Maybe the Enclosures A, B,C,D and H in total make up for only 0.00000001 %. But that is still 100% of Enclosures A, B, C, D and H. Of course not everything can be recovered or can be found on the internet so let's say we only see about 6% of these enclosures (hell do I know an actual number). That is still 100% per item. Of course items are damaged so let's say only 33% is still visible but that is still 100% per abstract relief form. Ah no damages we don't see the limb... and so what? percentages percentages. I know what I see though.

6 hours ago, Hanslune said:

For information knowledge these excavations are random, based on a series of test pits which some were then expanded on for archaeological reasons.

You are attempting to say there is  a 'pattern' to be seen in those four parts that holds for the entire site. Speculation as you data is scattered and randomly located across the site.

That is speculation as the sites found are random pieces of data from a site that is 94% unknown to you and everyone else.

Now try to understand that or have someone else that you trust explain it to you, like a child - they would understand, have them read it to you slowly, then question you until the ideas sinks in. Great eh.

If necessary we can explain it again using crayons.

lol, you can speculate all you want but you don't remotely have enough information to make a conclusion.

I understand you perfectly, it is just that you are Wrong! (capital W, exclamation mark). I'll post another commentary on pillars later today (it is that time again), you can think what you want, stand on your head blindfolded for all I care.

[Herbert Sanders]

Göbleki Tepe ‘decoded’ — Animals around the North Celestial Pole

the decoding of pillars 2, 12, 20, 21, 33, 38, 43, 51, 56 and the Lion’s Pillar

 

[Disclaimer: The contents of this post are merely the reflections of the author’s opinions an beliefs, the subject matter holds no scientific weight. The aim is to explore alternative views on history.]

Göbleki Tepe ‘decoded’ has become a bit of a series for me where I try to map out the significant reliefs that are found on the Pillars at Göbleki Tepe. Before diving in a gain I would like to stress that the process is iterative which means that although I have anchor points, there is often room for improvement. Minor shifts can happen as new correlation are made.

I would like to start out by rectifying Pillar 43 and Pillar 2. Below is a figure set of Pillar 43 with the related sky map for the year -9314 (9315 BCE) which is a date backed up by carbon dating. [1]

Figure set 1 Pillar 43, Enclosure D.

In my previous write up about Pillar 33 we have seen that Cassiopeia can be related to a spider. Note that Pillar 43 has a spider like figure on the front side of it, it is for this reason that I mapped the sky map with Cassiopeia on the meridian.

I would like to propose changes for the top segment of Pillar 43. We basically see three birds… The larger one with the disc remains the constellation Cygnus with the star Vega (constellation Lyra). The top right bird remains the constellation Hercules. However the ‘plough’ like figure becomes the constellation Draco as will be made clear in this writing. And the smaller bird in the lower right corner of the top sections becomes Aquila, this also brings back the focus to the Milky Way. The two ‘I’ like symbols represent the solstitial and equinoctial colures that cross the North Celestial Pole (NCP).

Read more | Göbleki Tepe ‘decoded’ — Pillar 33, and the advent of summer, Comparing the bull relief, the Nabta Playa, Giza Plateau connection.

On Pillar 2 I would like to mention that asterisms can shift over time. The Bull asterism is a large one that spans multiple constellations and is described differently across time. The Biblical he-goat (Daniel 8:5–7) is more energetic as it flies across the sky. On the Narmer-Palette of Protodynastic Egypt the bull is more stationary and also fashioned with very pronounced horns. This imagery of the Biblical He-goat and of the Narmer-Palette will be explained in greater detail at a later time.

Figure set 2 Pillar 2, Enclosure A compared to Daniel and Narmer.

Figure 1 Sky map Pillar 2, Enclosure A.

Göbleki Tepe’s bull is more like that of the Egyptians where the head of the bull is formed by the constellation Auriga. The below sky tries to capture the bull without mapping the stars, I will leave it up to the reader to connect the dots. Note that during the period of Enclosure A (c. 8800 BCE) this asterism was visible on the midnight meridian on the summer solstice!

Read more | The Meridian Star, Sphinx’s Aligns To Regulus (Leo) During Fifth Dynasty Egypt.

Ok now that I have made these additional remarks I can draw further correlations on new sets of pillars, starting out with Pillar 20, Enclosure D.

Figure set 3 Pillar 20, Enclosure D — Layer III

It is clear to see that we have a meridian (front side) consisting of a bull (the bull asterism, or Auriga which is its head), a snake (the constellation Draco) and a new figure that could perhaps be a boar (the constellation of Orion) although the depiction is too damaged to be certain . A fox is seen on the right side which I have designated as the area in the sky that we know of as the constellation Taurus (therefore I didn’t flip the image vertically. As before the period for Enclosure D is c. 9300 BCE.

Figure 2 Sky map Pilar 20, Enclosure D.

 

There is a very distinctive feature about the constellation Orion which is its belt. The belt consists of three stars: Alnitak, Alnilam and Mintaka. As we have seen with Pillar 33 there were three birds on the top segment of the pillar that could perhaps relate to these three stars. We also see imagery of these three birds and a boar topped off by a fox in Pillar 38 also from enclosure D. And then in reverse something that resembles a fox on the bottom above it a boar and at the top five birds on Pillar 12 from Enclosure C, however this would speak against this idea.

Figure set 4 Pillar 33 & 38, Enclosure D (c. 9300 BCE) and Pillar 12, Enclosure C (c. 8600 BCE?)

Enclosure C is said to be younger than Enclosure D and it is unclear for what extended period it has been in use. If we take into account precession then the image of Orion becomes more and more elevated as the years pass by. In 8600 BCE the sky would have looked like the image on the left.

Instead of waiting for an extended period of time the people of Göbleki Tepi might also have wandered to the south or have come in contact with people in the south. Only a few hundred miles would gain a few degrees of visibility.

Taken all this in account my proposal remains that a partial group of stars from the constellation of Orion is represented by the commonly sighted boar, where the bow of Orion are the hind legs and the big star Betelgeuse is the large an prominent tusk of the boar.

Another location of excavation at Göbekli Tepe is Enclosure H, at the far western side of the site. A topographic view can be seen below.

Figure set 5 Topographic view of Göbleki Tepe including a mapping of enclosures A, B, C, D & H.

Enclosure H also belongs to layer III, dating from late 10th millennium to the middle of the 9th millennium BCE. [2] The figure set below shows carbon dates for Enclosure H to the left and an alignment comparison between Enclosure C and H on the right.

Figure set 6 14C-Data from Enclosure H and alignment comparison between enclosure H and C.

 

If the alignment has something to do with the way the people of Göbleki Tepe viewed the skies at a certain time then perhaps the carbon dating of Enclosure H would be similar to that of enclosure C. Of course this is conjecture but the 8600 BCE date seems to be more than coincidental and as a whole supports the idea of a part of the constellation Orion being represented by a combination of a boar and birds. First three, later five.

At Enclosure H, Pillar 56 will greatly resonate if you have been reading my blogposts, have a look:

Figure set 6 Pillar 56, Enclosure H.

 

The side of it shows the same style of snake (constellation Draco), above a bull’s head (constellation Auriga)and two snakes coming together at a junction point. The junction point of the Milky Way and the ecliptic seems to be a recurring focus point in prehistoric times.

Read more | Protodynastic Egyptian Astronomy, Protodynastic Egyptian Starmaps.

The front plate shows a still image that tries to capture a moving frame as the stars circle across the sky around the NCP. Is it not fitting to have birds of prey or vultures circling the NCP? If this is the case then we can group the numbers and assign a single representing constellation per group. This greatly reduces the signs involved.

Figure 4 Illustration of Pillar 56, Enclosure H.

 

Aquila (Smaller bird in Pillar 43): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13, 17, 27, 29, 33, 35, 36, 37 ,49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55

Bootus (New entrant): 34

Cygnus (Big bird in Pillar 43): 15, 25, 26, 28, 30,

Draco (Big single snake in Pillar 43): 7,12,18, 21, 24

Lyra/NCP (Disc in pillar 43): 8

the Milky Way (Snakes in Pillar 33): 6, 9, 22, 23, 31, 32, 38 ,39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50

Ursa Major (New entrant): 10, 11, 14, 16, 19, 20

Figure 5 Sky map of Pillar 56, Enclosure H.

Interestingly this little exercise yielded two new entrants as well namely for the constellation Bootus and Ursa Major. The style of drawing for Ursa Major is very similar to that of the lion in Pillar 51, Enclosure H. The same styled lion (or Ursa Major) can be found in numerous places for example in the “”Lion’s Pillar Building”.

Figure set 7 Pillar 51, Enclosure H and the Lion Pillar relief from the Lion’s Pillar Building.

The animal numbered 34 seems to have antlers, antlers are found on Pillar 21, Enclosure D. The constellation Bootus has the appearance of a head with antlers, is in near proximity of the NCP and is accompanied by a smaller, rounder constellation named Corona Borealis. If we look at Pillar 21 then this might could be a fit even though there is little to go on.

Figure set 8 Pillar 21, Enclosure D.

I’d like to close with a fragment of a relief found next to one of the central pillars of Enclosure D. Can you tell what is being depicted here?

Figure 6 Fragment of a relief, Enclosure D.

 

Edited September 18, 2020 by Orestes_3113