Gobekli Tepe decoded

With Dimitrios Tsikritsis, I recently published a paper in the journal 'Mediterranean archaeology and archaeometry', Volume 17 issue1, that decodes symbolism at Gobekli Tepe (GT) in the context of the Younger-Dryas (YD) event and coherent catastrophism. Here, we make some additional observations not included in the paper.

To the best of our knowledge, Andrew Collins was the first to suggest a connection between GT and the YD event as a cometary encounter. in his book 'Gobekli Tepe: Genesis of the Gods'. His reasoning was based on his interpretation of various symbolism at GT, mythology, and GT's dating. He made a good guess without any statistical support. A year later, Graham Hancock attempted to decode GT in his book 'Magicians of the Gods' using the ideas of Paul Burley and the YD context provided by Collins, but in our view his logic takes a wrong turn early on, leading him to make some erroneous conclusions. Especially, we oppose Graham's contention that the Vulture Stone predicts an impact 12,000 years into their future - around 2030 AD - such predictions, of ocurse, would have been impossible for them. Nevertheless, the docoding of GT had begun, indicating we are in, or have recently emerged from, a period of coherent catastrophism as predicted by Napier and Clube and their colleagues. Research that predicts the liklihood of future events (i.e. cometary encounters) that takes this period of coherent catastrophism into account does not yet seem to have been published.

The excavators at GT have written a formal rebuttal of our work, and we have responded to their rebuttal, in the same journal - Vol 17, issue 2. All this research is 'open access' and can be freely downloaded.

Finally, on their website 'tepetelegrams' the excavators state that they '... doubt human creativity really can be treated as a statistical case solely.' In our view, this statement is avoiding the issue. The issue is whether Pillar 43 at Gobekli Tepe encodes a date using precession of the equinoxes. Code breaking is a science, and the foundation of all science is the statistical weight of evidence. To dismiss the scientific method, as they appear to do, because they do not agree with the outcome, is not scientific. It is where faith and religion start. As we say in our rebuttal to their response, to refute our conclusions one MUST find sufficient flaws in our statistical case. By not even attempting to do this, they leave themselves in a difficult position. We welcome work that uses computer-based pattern matching methods to investigate this issue further.

wetting layer absorption
polymer-platelet nanocomposites
novel free energy methods