nabta megalithen nicht 4500, sondern ca 3100

Andis Kaulins: I have deciphered the Nabta megaliths. They represent the stars around Taurus, the Pleiades and the Vernal Equinox ca. 3117 BC. In addition, the celestial meridian, the celestial equator, the ecliptic and the galactic meridian are marked. The date of 4500 BC for the summer solstice for this site alleged by mainstream archaeoastronomers is simply quite erroneous. It comes from a misinterpretation of the near N-S-E-W orientation of eight megaliths allegedly in pairs allegedly forming “gates” which the researchers then allege in one case to mark the sunrise point for the solstice in 4500 BC. The circle in fact has 29 stones. Indeed, the N-S line is quite true and we will see why shortly. The 4500 BC theory is substantiated by nothing and the site has nothing to do with summer solstice calculation. No one in ancient days measured solstices this way by using N-S-E-W lines. Quite the contrary, the forms of sites marking solstices are in the form of an X clearly deviating from a N-S line and quite precise in line. Here, some megalithic points are out of line and off center. That is hardly a summer solstice marking. Quite obviously, this site was measuring something quite different than what the researchers think they have identified. See .html for a description. and tml Similar errors are found in the interpretation of the chronological dating at Nabta, where it is clear that an older culture also existed on or near the Nabta site, but these were not the megalith makers. The only radiocarbon date which would substantiate an older date is from a larger structure on site. It is a piece of wood found at the top of a structure and could easily have come from a Sahara- preserved piece of wood from a previous era. It by no means dates the megalith makers to 4500 BC. See file=/nature/journal/v392/n6675/full/392488a0_r.html for a discussion of the dating. Where numerous radiocarbon dates are found, these center around 3500- 3000 BC. Charcoal from hearths at the site dates to ca. 3500-3000 BC, right in line with our 3117 BC megalithic date. Also the “cattle tumuli” are from this date of ca. 3500 - 3000 BC. Smaller structures even date to ca. 2800 BC, yet also within this same ballpark. The cattle tumuli are of interest because there is a stone at the site which the researchers themselves have remarked seems to represent a cow. I can tell you clearly - it is a cow, and it represents Taurus. I am uploading my decipherment of this site as nabta.gif to our LexiLine files in the Africa folder. What actually happened at Nabta was that there was a pre-existing non-megalithic culture at this site. The megalith makers came shortly in ca. 3117 BC and put up the astronomical complex, which was then abandoned by these same megalith makers ca. 3117 BC - or, to put it bluntly, they came - and they went. According to current theory, the stones were put up ca. 4500 BC and thereafter the culture remained there for 1400 years and did nothing. This is poppycock and not within the realm of probability. As written at “500 years after the exodus from Nabta, the first pyramid, the step pyramid of Saqqara, was built around 2650BC.” That is correct. The exodus from Nabta was nearly coincident with the arrival of the megalithic surveyors, who did their work and left the area to continue their work elsewhere. Nabta is by no means the oldest astronomical site in the world and this allegation should disappear immediately from scholarly literature. It is nonsense. I think it will also be found that the latitude and longitude of Nabta also interlock with the geodetic survey made and involving Hierakonpolis, whereby the two are separated by 2 degrees North South as well as 2 degrees East West. But this is for now yet my secret as to how this was done. Nabta 22° 31’ 0" N Longitude 30° 45’ 0" E Hierakonpolis 24° 40’ 0" N Longitude 32° 45’ 0" E - - - 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. Andis