Out of Africa - Human Origins - 213 LexiLine Journal

Welcome!

As an alumnus of Stanford University I get a Stanford newsletter
about goings on at "the Farm", as Stanford is locally called [so-
called because the University used to be the farm of Leland Stanford
Senior until he willed his land and fortune to establish Stanford in
honor of his untimely deceased son, whence the still-standing
official name of "Leland Stanford Junior University" for Stanford.]

At the URL

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2003/may28/humans-528.html

you will find a most interesting article by Mark Shwartz entitled
"DNA suggests humans descend from small ancestral population "
indicating that humans came "out of Africa" into the rest of the
world only about 70000 years ago.

As is written there concerning DNA results:

"Our results are consistent with the 'out-of-Africa' theory,
according to which a sub-Saharan African ancestral population gave
rise to all populations of anatomically modern humans through a
chain of migrations to the Middle East, Europe, Asia, Oceania and
America," Feldman noted.

...

"The data revealed a genetic split between the ancestors of these
hunter-gatherer populations and the ancestors of contemporary
African farming people -- Bantu speakers who inhabit many countries
in southern Africa. "This division occurred between 70,000 and
140,000 years ago and was followed by the expansion out of Africa
into Eurasia, Oceania, East Asia and the Americas -- in that order,"
Feldman said.

This result is consistent with an earlier study in which Feldman and
others analyzed the Y chromosomes of more than 1,000 men from 21
different populations. In that study, the researchers concluded that
the first human migration from Africa may have occurred roughly
66,000 years ago."

Flinders Petrie and Chronology at Tell El Hesy (Lachish) - 212 LexiLine Journal

Welcome!

Copyright © 2001-2003 by Andis Kaulins

[This is a challenge to the mainstream archaeologists. I claim the
chronology of the Middle East is flawed - and it is flawed due to
errors made initially by Flinders Petrie. My reasons are given
below. Any mainstream archaeologist out there who thinks he can
rebut my arguments is invited to submit a contra e-mail - BASED on
evidence - not on opinion (WHO you or your cited sources are
professionally interests me not a whit - it is the EVIDENCE that
counts - ONLY the evidence).]

Tell El Hesy (Lachish) by W.M. Flinders Petrie, reprinted 1989 by
Histories & Mysteries of Man Ltd., London, England, 1989, ISBN 1 854
17 052 X, is the foundation for modern chronology of the fertile
crescent. I have read the book in detail, confirming my initial
suspicion that Petrie made capital chronological errors in his
dating of Tell el Hasy and Lachish - errors which mainstream
chronology has blindly followed ever since, leading to a completely
erroneous history of the Middle East.

Since Petrie's dating of Tell El Hesy is the foundation for modern
chronology of the fertile crescent, it is all the more remarkable
that the book is out of print and virtually unknown - even though
its conclusions are uncritically accepted and used to date Biblical
and Egyptian history in general. Most men are sheep.

The fact is that Petrie made critical - if consistent - dating
errors, based on his preconceived notion of the chronological
history represented at the archaeological sites examined by him.

_________________________

1. Tell el Hesy - 16 miles East of Gaza about a third of the
distance from Gaza to Jerusalem - is an accumulated "residential"
mound ca. 60 feet in heigth (from 278 feet above sea level to 340
feet above sea level).

The upper layer - at 340 feet - contained "regular black and red
Greek pottery" which Petrie dated to ca. 450 BC. The bottom of the
tell is at 278 feet.

There is a layer of a period of great destruction - a stratum of
small stones "at the level of 286 to 291 feet" with a large layer of
ash above that which Petrie calls "the great bed of ashes"." Massive
man-made walls of mud brick lie below the layer of small stones,
pointing to a previous high culture.

Similar mounds in Egypt - as Petrie notes - rise 3 to 4 feet per
century or 30 to 40 feet in a thousand years. At 3 feet per century,
the earliest dwellings would be ca. 2000 years older than the Greek
pottery at the top level and would date to 2450 BC. At 4 feet per
century of accumulation, the earliest dwellings would be ca. 1500
years older than the Greek pottery and would date to ca. 1950 BC.
Since none of these fit into the preconceived picture, Petrie sets
the earliest dwellings at el Hesy at 1670 BC, based on a new
proposed rate of accumulation of 5 feet per century, the faster rate
allegedly because the "greater rainfall" in Syria would lead
to "quicker" destruction of mud walls and thus to a greater rate of
tell accumulation.

Petrie even goes so far as to call certain walls "the Amorite
wall", "Rehoboam's wall", "Manessah's wall", "the Wall of Ahaz",
etc., trying - in an "unscholarly" Schliemann-type manner - to fit
his finds to the Biblical accounts.

Indeed, there is no evidence for such quicker accumulation
whatsoever!

Rather, Petrie gently and almost imperceptibly "bends" the
archaeological facts to fit his view of Biblical history.

_________________________

2. Petrie bases his chronology on what he calls "Phoenician
pottery". As Petrie writes (p. 40), "The excavations at Tell el Hesy
proved to be an ideal place for determining the history of pottery
in Palestine. And once settle the pottery of a country, and the key
is in our hands for all future explorations." Indeed, as if knowing
his error, Petrie writes at page 45 "I have under rated rather than
over rated the age of the Tell el Hesy levels". How right he was !

Pottery called bilbils by the Syrians (thin black vases with long
necks) were found at the level of 305-325 feet above sea level on
the East side of Tell el Hesy and "black bowls" known to be
contemporary to the bilbils were found at the level of 295 to 315
feet at the Southeast side. (Please Note: Assyrian
bil-bil means plural bil, i.e. "bowls" and NOT bil-bil !)

Petrie then states that although this pottery is not dated in
Phoenicia, he had seen similar examples in Egypt, the earliest of
which were dated to the late 18th dynasty in Egypt (Petrie dated
this to ca. 1400 BC on the basis of two similar things of Amenhotep
III - whose reign is dated today to ca. 1350 BC).

To an impartial observer, the bilbils and black bowls would BOTH be
seen to span 20 feet of accumulated time - 305-325 feet on the East
and 295-315 feet on the Southeast, i.e. a corresponding 20 foot time
span, with SLANTING topography probably accounting for the
difference.

Petrie, however, inexplicably puts the the two figures together and
expands the Phoenician period to 25 feet of accumulated history at
Tell el Hesy, placing the early Phoenician period at the level of
295 feet and running it to 320 feet, although in fact BOTH measured
sites at Tell el Hesy point to only a 20-foot accumulated Phoenician
time-period. Obviously, Petrie used this calculational "trick" -
perhaps subconsciously - to mesh his preconceived notions about
Biblical chronology with the chronology of Egypt and fit the
Phoenicians in.

Correctly however, to be consistent in using the measuring rod of
the 60 foot heigth of the Tell, the Phoenician pottery period could
only have spanned 20 feet or 1/3 of the height of the tell, from the
level of 305 to 325 feet above sea level, so that 305 feet above sea
level at Tell el Hesy marked the earliest Phoenician pottery and not
295 feet, a difference of ca. 300 critical years (3 feet per
century) of chronology! This indeed is the approximate margin of
error in Biblical chronology between the correct date for Moses and
Exodus (1628 BC) and the date currently assigned to Moses and Exodus
by mainstream chronology (ca. 1300).

If level 305 and not 295 corresponded to Petrie's ca. 1400 BC - then
35 feet of accumulation separated the earliest Phoenician pottery
from the top of the Tell, and 35 feet of accumulation would have
occurred in ca. 1000 years. This would be a rate of accumulation
corresponding to the verified 3 to 4 feet per century evidenced on
corresponding Tells in the Egyptian delta.

The accumulation of 5 feet per century for Tell el Hesy alleged by
Petrie is thus clearly erroneous. As he himself suspected, he had in
fact VASTLY under rated the age of the levels of Tell el Hesy,
simply because he wanted to mesh a Biblical chronology which was far
older than he imagined.

Therefore, NO scholar anywhere in the world today - in any field
dealing with ancient history in the fertile crescent - can possibly
accept Petrie's chronology and those current mainstream chronologies
built upon his conclusions. Such chronologies are nothing other than
fictions and must be amended to correct for Petrie's obvious error.

_________________________

3. Santorin explodes 1628 BC

Once the dating of Tell el Hesy has been corrected, the layer of ash
(5 feet!) and the layer of stones above the massive walls below take
on a new significance since the levels of ash and stones then apply
to the period ca. 1628 BC.

As Petrie himself writes "These ashes were certainly spread by the
wind". "No deposit by hands could effect this, the stuff must have
been wind-borned, and dropped by the breeze without interference."
(p. 16)Lacking any better theory, however, Petrie tries to account
for them by the Bedawin (Bedouin) burning of plants for alkali
and "the charcoal layers...the result of the sparks and dust of the
burning, and the breaking up of the fires; while the white lime
layers were the dust blown about after the lixiviation had washed
away the alkali. The town must then have been deserted, or almost
so, at the time when the alkali burners resorted here, and when
their ashes blew about and settled undisturbed over a great part of
the hill."

What Petrie writes above is absolute nonsense of course, but Petrie
had to explain the layers of ash somehow.

Of course, after the event causing these layers of volcanic ash,
Tell el Hesy is deserted. Even more, as Petrie himself writes: "Now
this we see just corresponds to the great break in the history of
Palestine...."

This "break in the history of Palestine" of course did not happen
because of plants being burned for alkali by nomads. This was the
great period of conflagration due to the explosion of Santorin, the
volcanic ash, the earthquakes, fire from the heavens, apparently
over several years. Petrie places the date for this layer of ash at
ca. 1300 BC but of course he has a ca. 300-year error. The year is
actually closer to 1628 BC.

_________________________

4. Interestingly, Petrie's dating of the so-called "Amorite" comb-
face pottery on page 40 of his book as being ca. 1600 BC to ca. 1000
BC meshes exactly with my dating of the Phoenician levels at Tell El-
Hesy. Perhaps this was the influence of the Phoenicians on the
Amorites. It is Petrie's misdating of the Phoenicians - based on his
attempt to mesh historical data of Egypt with the erroneous
chronology of the Biblical Jews - which was his undoing. Indeed, it
has remained a great chronological problem down to this day.

The Dating of Tell el Hesy is thus correctly:

A. Top of mound - 340 feet above sea level = ca. 500 BC (Greek
pottery)(after several hundred years of dark ages - - Greek pottery
had surfaced ca. 700 BC)

B. Last Phoenician (comb-face) pottery - 325 feet above sea level =
ca. 1000 BC
This is the period of the invasion of the northern Sea Peoples who
came to the rescue of the Hebrews, but were turned back by Ramses
III = Biblical Shishak and the Assyrian Babylonians. This led to the
end of the Pharaohs and was the period of the Babylonian Captivity
of the Jews as well as the dark age in the fertile crescent - when
building of temples etc. ceased and much was destroyed.

C. Earliest Phoenician (comb-face) pottery - 305 feet above sea
level = ca. 1650 BC
This is the period of ca. 1628 BC, with earthquakes and the
explosion of the volcano Santorin on Thera - which was the period of
the Biblical Exodus, and also the period at which the Phoenicians
become prominent, probably through migration to escape natural
disasters. This is the period of the layer of stones and ashes at
Tell El Hesy.

D. Earliest dwellings at Tell el Hesy - 280 feet above sea level =
ca. 2500 BC
As Petrie notes, in the N.W. tower of Tell el Hesy, at level 295
feet above sea level (ca. 2000 BC by my corrected chronology of
Petrie's data), they found "a cylinder of coarse dull red haematite,
now weighing 142.3 grains, probably 144 originally; this is the
Egyptian kat weight. Several scraps of bronze were found, wire
armlets, hair-pins, a .knife, and a sheep bell; and some iron
fragments, a knife, and arrow-heads." This corresponds possibly to
the building of a fort by the Egyptians here in the 24th year of
reign under Amenemhet I ca. 2000 BC, who organized an expedition to
Gaza - the northeastern border of united Egypt at that time -
against the Asiatic desert dwellers. This corresponds to the
position of Lachish.

Does that above date of 2500 BC seem unusual?

_________________________

5. Who were the Phoenicians?

The mark of a great man of science is not that he always right, but
rather that he recognizes the critical issues and adds new methods
and insights to knowledge, even if they are not perfect. No one is
right all the time.

My criticism of Petrie's erroneous chronology by no means should
take away from the greatness of his manifold achievements.

Also in his book on Tell el Hesy, Petrie shows the enormous breadth
of his interests and, in his discussion of the styles of masonry in
Palestine, points us toward a proper identification of the
mysterious Phoenicians

The Phoenicians are found referenced in Egyptian hieroglyphs of the
Middle Kingdom under the term FENEKHW, which of course is an Indo-
European term as in Latvian VEJNIEKI or VEJNIESHE "men of the wind",
(VEJNIESHI = PHOENICIANS) i.e. sailors.

The idea that the (Italian) sailing boat feluca derives from Arabic
fulk "ship" is incorrect. It is the other way around, since the root
is proto-Indo-European as in Latvian VEJ- "wind". Latin retains this
root in VELA "the sail" which is Latvian VELA "cloth, washing hung
up to dry - which resulted in the idea of a sail". In the north of
Europe these were probably the WENDs, people of the WIND. The terms
BRIT- and PRUS- as in Britain and Prussia (Borussia) thus probably
are related to the Latvian term BURAS "sails", which explains
another ancient term PRST for the "sea peoples"
found in ancient sources.

The Phoenicians of course are not in any manner the Palestinians -
as some claim, for these latter were not sailors but rather
landlocked desert marauders, who are otherwise the Hyksos of
history, or the Midianites of the Bible.

Petrie recognizes in his book on Tell el Hesy that the style of
stone dressing used by the Phoenicians was "flaking and pocking" -
i.e. flaking by heavy blows and then bruising down the surface with
a heavy pointed hammer - and that this style is found:

1) on the great monolith lying in the quarry in the Russian quarter
of Jerusalem
2) in the galleries called Solomon's Stables under the Haram
3) in the stone work of the temple at Hagir Kim in Malta
4) in the wrought stones at Stonehenge - Petrie writes "the best
examples of it are on the flat tops of the uprights of the great
trilithons.
And another curious formation occurs at Stonehenge as well as at
Hagir Kim; the edge of an upright is somewhat raised, so as to form
a sort of tray, and a corresponding cutting is made in the cap
stone. This is of course in addition to the rough tenons at
Stonehenge." (p. 36)

In other words, Petrie has observed the clear connection between the
megalithic cultures of old - certainly one of the first men ever to
do so.

The desert dwellers, i.e. Palestinians, had a different style of
masonry, found only in a few places since they were nomads and not
ordinarily settled peoples. This masonry style is identified by
Petrie, as "long-stroke picking" - done with an edge or point, with
no breadth of cut - and is seen on

1) the great blocks of the first building of the Beit el Khulil near
Hebron
2) dressing of the wall at Tell Safi - which Petrie says is probably
the old Philistine fortress of Gath,
and
3) on the sandstone masonry and steps of Lachish ca. 700 BC, i.e.
after the Babylonian captivity and AFTER the days of the
Phoenicians, who were the Sea Peoples who had lost their seat of
power in the fertile crescent in the days of Ramses III, who was
Shishak.

Interesting is that Petrie regards Jewish style to be a mixture
which is neither pure Amorite [Arab] nor Phoenician, but which
consists of a mixture of characters of both peoples.

_________________________


6. Ashdod, Ashkelon = Kadesh [Thick layer of ash also found here]

My redating of Tell el Hesy makes it relatively simple to also
correctly date ancient cities of the Near East in that same region
and correct some major errors of mainstream historical scholarship.

Here are the basic corrections
a. Ashdod was an ancient city on the "curve of the Mediterranean
Coast" at the Wadi Lakhish (similar to Indo-European e.g. Latvian
LIKS, LICIS "gulf") on a what was probably the northernmost border
of Ancient Egypt on a line running toward Lachish (Tell
el Hesy).

The levels of occupation at Ashdod show the same dating errors as
Tell el Hesy and are off by about 300 to 350 years. (Ashdod is
similar to Greek azotus and Latvian azotis meaning "bosom" [of the
Mediterranean], i.e. "gulf", curved part of the Mediterranean).

There is a very thick layer of ash at Ashdod at the level which
corresponds to the thick layer of ash at Tell el Hesy. This layer of
ash dates to ca. 1628 BC whereas mainstream scholars date that level
of ash erroneously to 1300-1200 BC (without the benefit of Petrie's
imagined "alkali burners" theory). Hence, all other levels at Ashdod
are correspondingly falsely dated.

It is only AFTER the volcanic eruption of Santorin that the
Philistines occupy the city, including the neighboring Ashkelon.

Indeed, ALL the cities Jericho, Debit (Tell Bet-Mirsim), Lachisch,
Bet-El, Gibeon and Hazor (Tell el Qedaz) were all destroyed by fire
and ash at the same time - and - as David Rohl has noted for Hazor,
this occurred at least a hundred years previous to any possible
destruction by the Israelites - in fact 300 years previous.

b. Scholars in the 20th century have erred in locating Lachish at
Tell ed-Duwer. Rather, Petrie already and correctly identified Tell
el Hesy in the 18th century as Lachish, i.e. La-cHish (cHish =
Hesy). Tell (k)ed-Duwer is in fact the Biblical site of Kadesh which
scholars have unsuccessfully and falsely tried to find in a
completely other region. KaDesh was later used as the "reference"
city for the battle in the Bible, and the battle here was a battle
for the northern border of Egypt. Indeed, there is strong evidence
of ancient military battle here, e.g. ancient Assyrian ramps have
been found at (k)ed Duwer, i.e. Kadesh.

c. At the time of King Ramses II (who was King Solomon - the battle
of Kadesh took place in the fifth year of his reign, 480 years after
Exodus - which is 1147 BC), and the winning of this battle is found
inscribed in the reliefs at Karnak, where the battle is said to have
been won for Eskarun which is similar to Indo-European e.g. Latvian
aizskarin "border, curtain". Assyrian sources refer to Eskarun as
Asqualuna and refer to it as a "region" with a definite BORDER, and
we retain this term as the historical city name Ashkelon on this
border.

UK Prehistoric Cave Art Creswell Crags - 211 LexiLine Journal

Welcome!

The following article relates to
Cave Rock Art found at Creswell Crags in the United Kingdom

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2994130.stm

As I have posted long ago in my decipherment of the megaliths
of Ancient Britian, the caves of Creswell Crags were used for
geographic survey by the stars in the megalithic system
See
http://www.megaliths.co.uk/creswell.htm

Hence, although I do not know from these articles
just which caves contain which rock art,
I am sure we will find an astronomical correspondence
ultimately for these prehistoric cave paintings,
once their location is clear.

Note, however, how sloppy the archaeological reporting is,
not giving exact locations of findings, but only general isolated
information and lots of speculative and completely unfounded
interpretation, especially about dating of the art, rather than just
presenting the facts as they are.

Indeed, my major problem in deciphering the megaliths has not been
their decipherment - the major problem has been to find accurate,
complete and non-subjective description and/or reporting about sites
which I myself have not visited in person. The archaeologists are
too busy dating their "sensational" finds rather than doing their
job - which is to describe what they have found for those who are
better at interpreting their findings than they are themselves.

That is the rather dismal state of mainstream archaeology today.

Franconia New Hampshire Cepheus Megalithic - 210 LexiLine Journal

Welcome!

To our files on North America at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LexiLine/files/

I am today - as the files

newhampshire.gif and
franconia.gif (decipherment plus photograph from
http://www.nhhistory.org/chooses/details.asp?pageid=oldman)

adding the so-called "Old Man of the Mountain" at Franconia Notch
State Park in

New Hampshire to our list of important megalithic rock sites in the
United States.

As I have discovered, this site marked Cepheus (as the large
protrusion of the Milky Way at that point)
in the ancient megalithic survey of North America by astronomy in
Neolithic days.

For a terrific photograph
see http://www.nhhistory.org/chooses/details.asp?pageid=oldman

Hard to believe, but there are mountains in New Hampshire in the
USA. The tallest peak in the northeast of the United States is Mount
Washington at 6,228 feet. The area was sacred to Native Americans.

South and west of Mount Washington near Mount Lafayette in New
Hampshire (1,200 feet above Interstate 93 ca. 65 miles north of
Concord) we then find Franconia Notch State Park, with the
remarkable Old Man of the Mountain - a [once] spectacular rock
carving which mainstream archaeology gullibly believes [ed] to be a
natural formation.

It is claimed to be an "optical illusion" formed by five ledges and
seen only like this from one location (but see again
http://www.nhhistory.org/chooses/details.asp?pageid=oldman).

It is of course quite clear that this is [was] an ancient megalithic
rock carving of immense grandeur, surely using much of a natural
rock formation - which was then uncarved.

Anyone who takes the time to zoom the photo of the forty-foot head
as photographed at
http://www.nhhistory.org/ chooses/index.asp
(I suggest using e.g. Paint Shop Pro to enlarge the photograph)
will see how clearly and neatly even the eye and the nose and the
mouth are carved, how the hat on the top of the head has the shape
of a hare and how there is a dog (?) up and to the right of the head
at the top (at the small protrusion of the Milky Way above Deneb),
as well as dozens of other figures carved on the ledges.

The only "optical illusion" suffered here is that of mainstream
science, who in their boundless ignorance and arrogance of
alleged "high" learning, can [could] not recognize the carved head
of a man when they see [saw] one.

Remarkably, this "optical illusion" was recognized as a human head
by all else who saw it and it became a state emblem of New
Hampshire - and, although allegedly an illusion,
the outjutting rock which made up this head - disastrously -
FELL early this month,
May 4, 2003 from its perch, in spite of efforts to save it.

See
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/05/03/old.man.mountian.ap/index.html

We hope it will be restored as the magnificent ancient monument it
once was.

Looting of Artefacts in Iraq - 209 LexiLine Journal

Welcome!

.
Here is a link to a New York Times article on the true state of the
looting of artefacts in Iraq.

It is a development with a long history.

But note that the Iraq Museum did not even have a computer
list of its holdings. Rather incredible archaeological sloppiness.

You may have to register - cost-free - with the New York Times.
I recommend it - it costs nothing and you can tailor your
registration to have newsletters sent to you for free on articles
containing keywords of your choosing.

As I have stated so often
it is often primarily the money
and often less so the history
which drives the science of archaeology.

Serious researchers such as myself receive no funds from anywhere.
Where would the profit - except in knowledge - be?

Nabta Megaliths Deciphered - 208 LexiLine Journal

Welcome!

.

As I have now posted to our LexiLine files in the folders on Egypt,
the Sahara and Africa, the megaliths of Nabta mark the Vernal
Equinox in ca. 3117 BC marking the stars of Taurus (Aldebaran is the
largest of the markers), the Pleiades, the line of stars at the head
of Cetus, plus the celestial equator, celestial meridian, ecliptic
and galactic meridian.

The mainstream interpretation that the megaliths of Nabta mark the
Summer Solstice around 4500 BC as published in Nature is simply
egregiously wrong, dependent on a very erroneous conclusion that the
near N-S-E-W orientation of the megaliths marks the Summer Solstice -
an alignment which is otherwise not used for the summer solstice in
megalithic astronomy - and misinterpreting the
radiocarbon data by taking an older date for a piece of wood of
unknown origin rather than the certain radiocarbon data for charcoal
from the campfires, which dates the Nabta site correctly in the
period ca. 3500 - 3000 BC.

I think it is high time in scientific circles that the kind of
dating practices visible at Nabta by mainstream scientists - who are
erroneously seeking to establish the site as the oldest astronomical
site in the world - be strongly criticized. This kind of dating is
not advancing the cause of science.

Indeed, similar dating and chronology is rampant in archaeology. It
seems that hardly a month goes by without some archaeologist
finding some new pot or skull and claiming fervently that it HIS
find which is the "oldest" find of this type ever found. This has
got to stop.

Below I have formed some general principles which have to be
followed for accurate and serious dating of megalithic sites.

1. There MUST be precursor technology.
The site can not exist in isolation out in the middle of nowhere -
like in the middle of the Sahara, good grief - without a good theory
or evidence as to where the precursor technology came from. For
example, the megaliths in the Ancient Britain and Ireland show a
long history of working with stone - a technology which does not
just arise out of nowhere - you have to have the tools and the
experience to do this kind of work.

In the Sahara, outside of Nabta, there is nothing of the precursor
technology visible . The site suddenly just appears. The notion that
megalithic building and astronomy thus derived from this region is
simply Alice in Wonderland fantasy writing.

2. There MUST be a continuity in the development of technology over
time. Once a given technology is developed, i.e. carving in stone on
a large scale, it just does not disappear. Rather, technologies are
improved and perfected. This applies to tools, methods and materials.
This continuity must be visible.

Hence, it is equally absurd to allege that the megaliths of Nabta
date to 4500 BC in southeast Egypt, with this technology then
peaking at the Pyramids more than 1500 years later, and inbetween
nothing, NOTHING! Sorry, not even in the realm of probability.

3. There MUST be a plausible astronomical and geodetic explanation
as to why a megalithic site is located where it is.

The ancients did not just put these sites up helter-skelter
everywhere just to mark the Sun and Moon going up and down as most
megalithic observers think, i.e. sort of a garden planetarium in
each Neolithic man's back yard. That is just crazy. You do not need
sophisticated megaliths to simply mark the Summer Solstice alone.
But you do need more sophisticated megalithic methods to find the
Equinoxes or to conduct geographic surveys or to determine the
Summer Solstice within the precession of stars.

4. There MUST be a plausible explanation as to who the megalith
makers in any location were. In Sahara, these were most certainly
NOT the previous inhabitants of the Nabta region, who show
no evidence of having worked in large stone prior to the arrival of
the megalith makers. Hence, any radiocarbon dating attributable to
them does NOT apply to the megalith makers. We find the
similar situation for the megaliths of the Central African
Republican. It is quite clear that these megaliths were not put up
by the local population (perhaps they helped put them up based on
instructions from the megalithic surveyors) – rather, this was a one-
time thing for a specific reason, which as I claim was the survey of
Africa by sea voyaging sailors from Ancient Britain.

5. Hence, at any site, there MUST be a determination made whether
the megaliths were constructed by locals or by a small or large
immigrant group, and in what time frame. All of these myriad
possibilities are never taken into account by the archaeologists and
that is why their work and their results are also seriously flawed.

If we find an Indian arrow-head on Manhattan Island, this does not
date the Empire State Building, nor tell us who constructed it. I
hope I have made this important point eminently clear because most
archaeologists, archaeoastronomers, Egyptologists, near Eastern and
old Testament scholars, do not seem to understand it.

LexiLine Journal #207B - Understanding Calendars and Ancient Chronology including Maya Dating and Halley's Comet

Welcome!

.
--- In LexiLine@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Szabo wrote:
>
> Dear List, Dear Andis,
>
> I would like to know if i may ask some understanding
> questions in this
> list or rather if, when its some lexiline topic, to you only.
>
> Maybe there are people on the list, that want to answer or that
would also profit of this for learning and understanding.
>
> One is, I have read again and again the page about the
>mayacalendar corrected (lexi75) and still do not understand
>why one must use [minus] 3116 for
> calculations, not 3117 (b.c.). >

Here is my (Andis Kaulins) answer to those questions:

If my explanations have not been able to help you then you will have
to read under "Gregorian Calendar" on John Walker's:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/
It is in fact helpful to read and understand that page IN FULL....

Walker, who co-authored Autocad, writes about this problem as follows
in his help file to the free downloadable astronomy program Home
Planet which he also programmed.

"This dialogue allows you to enter a Julian date (remember that the
day number changes at noon, not midnight) and see the corresponding
Universal time displayed. The Universal time is updated dynamically
as you change the Julian date. Click OK to have Home Planet display
the Earth and sky at the specified Julian date (doing this will halt
automatic updates; select Animate/Run to resume them). Clicking Now
resets the Julian date to the current date and time.

You can enter any Julian date zero or greater. For Julian dates for
years before 1 A.D., note that astronomers and historians use
different conventions those years. In history books, the year that
preceded 1 A.D. is called 1 B.C.; zero not having come into use in
European culture at the time. Astronomers consider the year before
1 A.D. as "year 0". Thus when an astronomer talks about an eclipse
having occurred in the year -412, that's the year historians refer
to as "413 B.C.". In converting Julian days to historical dates,
Home Planet assumes the canonical date for the adoption of the
Gregorian calendar, Friday, October 15th, 1582. Many countries
shifted to the Gregorian calendar much later; in Great Britain, not
until 1752. When investigating events in history, make sure you
express all dates after October 15th, 1582 in the Gregorian calendar.

To convert a Universal time to Julian date, use the Edit/Set
Universal time dialogue."
[end of quoted material]

Why is this not corrected by the historians?
Because it is always more comfortable for mainstream scientists to
work with erroneous "established" data than to change to "correct"
data. This happens all the time. The website referred to above
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/
provides other more modern examples of this "time-saving" phenomenon.

>I also failed to understand how the 819
> must be seen or added (?) in relation to the long count date.
>Aren't that long-count dates allways correct for themselfes?
>So do i have to add the 819 to the tzolkin ha'ab somehow?
>Or is it just a signal to the julian counting people?
>
> I would enjoy to feel more evidence in these researches by
>entirely understanding them.
> regards,
> Andreas

What is a year?
See here
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/Year.html
There are all kinds of possibilities.

A normal "calendric solar year" is 365 days.

But an astronomical or tropical "star" year is a year with a mean
average of 365.24219878 days, which is
"The period of time required for the earth to make one complete
revolution around the sun, measured from one vernal equinox to the
next and equal to 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 45.51 seconds."
See The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth
Edition, 2000 at http://www.bartleby.com/61/50/S0545000.html

The Maya scholars use a "continuous count" of days in the Maya
literature to trace the calendar back to 3114 BC, i.e. as if the
Maya used a strict calendric solar year without corrections for the
fact that 365 days is not quite accurate but is off by about 1/4 of
a day, which, for example, is why we insert leap years every 4th
year in our modern calendars.

Now, if the Maya had been so stupid as not to adjust THEIR calendars
much as we adjust ours to the true astronomical year, then the date
for the start of the Maya calendar would be exactly that which the
Maya scholars allege in 3114 BC, thinking that the superb Maya
astronomers had no understanding of these things.

But the Maya astronomers were not as stupid as the Maya scholars
make them. Rather, the Maya adjusted their calendar for the tropical
year, just as we adjust it in modern times by inserting leap years.

As I have explained at
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi75.htm
819 days is "added" as a notation to various Maya dates to show that
this number of days had been intercalated since the year 0 in the
Maya system at the time of the building of Tikal - which is why
TIKAL was built - to mark the recalibration of the Maya calendric
system, to adjust for the tropical year.

The ERA from 3117 BC (when I claim the calendar began)
running to the building of Tikal
- if we take the "year" to be correctly calculated by the Maya
as an astronomical tropical year of ca. 365.25 days -
shows a difference of ca. 820 days TO
the ERA starting from 3114 BC
(when the Maya scholars claim the calendar began - BASED ON A
CONTINUOUS COUNT OF DAYS WITHOUT CORRECTION FOR A CORRECT
ASTRONOMICAL TROPICAL YEAR)
and running to Tikal.

The Maya calendar as allegedly starting 3114 BC and as alleged by
the mainstream Maya scholars can ONLY be correct if the Maya did not
adjust at Tikal for the tropical year

- BUT the fact is that they did adjust,
and that is the intercalation of 819 days at Tikal.

Thus, the ACTUAL calendar began December 25, 3117, as I allege and
as is proven without doubt at
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi75.htm
in showing how the Maya literature describes an appearance of
Halley's Comet in 375 AD,
which is NOT MATCHED by mainstream chronology
but which is WELL MATCHED
by my corrected Maya chronology.

For one calculation of the historical dates
of the appearance of Halley's Comet
by Joseph L. Brady
"Halley's Comet: AD 1986 to 2647 BC"
see
http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1982JBAA...92..209B

There is nothing more to be said on this topic and we will just have
to wait until the Maya scholars get their act together. The facts
and evidence are clear - and I have heard no sensible rebuttal from
Maya scholars on my mesh of dates with Halley's appearance.

So, to answer your question - do you have to "add anything" to the
Maya counts? Well, you have to adjust backwards for 819 days.

As I write at
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi75.htm
"Great Burning Claw" was Halley's Comet
and it did not appear on January 31, 378 AD as a "ruler" -
rather, because of the 819-day error,
Halley actually appeared on May 4, 375 AD,
i.e. much closer to the date of 374 AD calculated by Brady for this
appearance of Halley, which the Maya's can NOT - NOT have seen, this
being one of the closest passages of Halley's Comet on record. It
would have been quite a great sight and the Maya would have noted
it - and did note it - as "Great Burning Claw".