Gobekli Tepe's dating

Gobekli Tepe's dating analysis 

Reading the site's dating methodology, archeologists used two sources and ignores the evident development over millennia.

Let's see all three pieces of data to determine if they are credible.

1. Dating using charcoal pieces.

Charcoal, by definition, is burned wood. That means that it's chemical composition was altered.  By itself, it is not reliable out of context.

Charcoal was used since the stone age. If we look under the twin towers in New York when destroyed, you could find charcoal used by natives.  That doesn't mean that the twin towers were 3,000 years old.  Finally, the wood used was, most likely, bog wood.  That's wood cured in anoxic bogs. It's highly combustible and still used as burning wood. Get the problem?

2. Dating plaster

Archeologists used plaster on walls to find organic residue to carbon date it.  Just so happens that plaster used is clay.  Clay is found deep under the fertile soil.  It is anoxic and preserves organic material for millenia.  If you dig for clay today in unaltered terrain and date it's organic content, it will give you millenia.

Now, tell me, if you build using that plaster, will your structure be millenia old?

3. Progressive development aging

This is easy to understand.  Cultures built where there were older cunstructuions.  So, the recycled material from former structures were reused.

Builders of this tourist trap, as well as many others, know these things. That's why, when creating a tourist trap, that's what they look for.

To properly date a site, you need contextual evidence like;

a. Unmoved murals and unaltered text mentioning a clear reference to a moment in time.

b. Carbon dating of cadaver bones in a tomb associated to the structure.  Not just a skeleton found randomly. Must be linked to the site in a clear way.

c. Mentions by others.

... 

Neither is found in Gobekli Tepe.

The Hittites, for example, were lost in time, but found using all three evidences.

Murals, Tombs, and broadly mentioned by contemporaneous Egyptians, Babylonians and even the Bible

 

Vikings and their legacy

 

Much had been said, published and portrayed about the inhabitants of Northern Europe between the years 600 and 900 of the current era.  The process during which these people turned from pagans to Christians is shrouded in the cloak of the Dark Ages. 

They had been stereotyped as filthy barbarians as well as expert seafarers, traders, artisans, and blacksmiths.  Let us revise history to better understand these people.

From now on, we will address Vikings as Nordics, let us explain.  The inhabitants of Scandinavia descend from Germanic tribes living in East Europe and Western Asia.  We cannot be completely certain, but Scandinavians emigrated to what we call Russia today, Northern Europe and Britannia.  During the years 300 and 900 they interacted with three major civilizations; Iberians, Romans (wrongly called Byzantines) and Muslims.  All three of these civilizations describe them as filthy, barbaric, unscrupulous, and opportunistic; never calling them Vikings.  No other description is found from contemporaneous cultures.

The conventional means of transportation used by Nordics were the “Long Boats.”  The design of these ships dates to the Phoenicians, three millennia before.  Mediterraneans built these flat bottom ships with no keel to enter shallow and narrow rivers one way to be able to return without turning it around.  This ancient design is not Nordic, perhaps copied or “acquired” from Iberians that were direct descendants of Romans, Greeks, and, of course, Phoenicians.  Most reports of raids from Nordics are reported in rivers all over Europe.  They did go to Britannia hired by Britons to help against Picts (Scotland’s tribes).  Bad luck followed Romanized Britons because Nordics became a pest themselves.  After a few decades, Britons hired Saxons and Anglos (two Germanic cultures) to fight Nordics and Picts in exchange for lands.  That is how England was born. 

Let us return to “Longboats.”  As I mentioned before, they had no keel, and its bottom was flat.  A keel on a concave hull is needed for forward displacement as sails trap wind from any direction, also to keep the ship from skidding or flipping sideways on open waters.  This will make the most likely route for Nordics to enter Britannia from France at the closest stretch between the continent and the island, specially because currents in the North Sea have an easterly direction making it impossible for Nordics to sail west from Scandinavia.  Taking into consideration all these reasons, I must say that Nordics were great river travelers, but not seafarers.  No one knows when or how they reached Greenland if they ever did.

My last topic leaves the strongest evidence for Nordics being seafarers out.  This is the ruins found in L’Anse Aux Meadows in Canada.  There is a big problem with this village being of Nordic origin.  To start, no village like this one is found anywhere in Scandinavia.  On the other hand, the village arrangement is compatible with villages from the Iroquois tribes in North America.  Not only is the village not compatible with Nordic Villages in Europe, but also there is no forge or agricultural exchange.  If Nordics reached America and returned to Europe to tell the story, where are seeds and animals brought with them?  Finally, the only mention of Nordics traveling to “Vinland” is in what is known as the “Sagas.”  A set of writings in Latin or using Latin letters accredited to scholars and monks writing oral history that happened centuries before during the Dark Ages when not many knew how to read or write.  I will say with real confidence that the ruins in L’Anse Aux Meadows is a “Tourist Trap.”

I will address three more topics, first, were they traders?  If that is so, with whom?  No evidence had I found of any trade agreement between Nordics and any other culture.  We find these trades in civilizations like Ghanaians, Malians, Zimbabweans, Egyptians, Carthaginians, Chinese, Indians, Mexicas, Olmecs, Mayans, Koreans, Vietnamese, and even Polynesians and Caribbeans, millennia before.  But none from Nordics.  They got everything from pillaging and raids.  Second, did they forge?  Not one forge from 300-900 had been found in Scandinavia. Everything found has questionable dating. Lastly, did they create artifacts? Why make what you can steal?  Nordes' axes, swords, shields, pikes and jewelry are compatible with Roman's. (Constantinopla) 

To conclude my analysis, I will have to say that the only characteristic or stereotype that we can corroborate with contemporaneous sources is that they were Barbarians.  As I see it, they were a bunch of tribes with little in common and not even a common language.  Filial tribes that only cared about opportunities to raid and pillage others with total unscrupulous behavior.  They were the human race that took the longest to develop a true civilization, if they ever.

jrs

PS, search Viking axe and Byzantine axe. They are the same 

The "European" Crusades

 

The Real Crusades

World history is shrouded in blurry mist.  One of the principal reasons is that so many protagonists had written different versions of it.  By researching many of these versions, I had been able to triangulate a version that fits logic and common sense.  In this assay I portrait a version of the Crusades that does not fit conventional “wisdom” in any European society.

Although, in the West, we recognize as real the events that occurred between the years 1098-1250 as a series of military incursions from Europe to the Levant, nobody else does.  The two main powers in the region were the Romans and the Fatimids.  While most western historians and even universities teach that the Romans seized to exist back in the year 450, it is true that Constantine I, emperor of Rome, moved the capital to Byzantium in the year 321 renaming it New Rome de-facto continuing Roman history for another millennium. The term “Byzantine” is modern and never did Romans in Constantinople called themselves that way. 

The Fatimids had reinforcements from Moors, Seljuks, and other Muslims; Taifas, Emirates and Caliphates.  Being outnumbered, Romans requested reinforcements from other Christian powers like the Aragonese, Venetians and Catholics.  There is a well translated and preserved record when reinforcements from Northern Europe arrived and reported to Emperor Alexius I Komnenos.  Nothing else is said about them other than they were ill equipped, poorly trained, and barbaric in nature.  Muslim accounts recount the same adjectives never mentioning by name any of the accepted European commanders.  Not even King Baldwin of Jerusalem or the rest of the European generals.

The Theater of War deviates a lot from what Europeans teach.  The Christian-Muslim “Crusades” happened in Iberia, Venetia, and the Levant, not just in Jerusalem.  Also, the main forces at war were local Romans and Fatimids with foreign reinforcements.

There are other logical obstacles to Northern Europeans playing a key role in the “Crusades”.  I cannot imagine hundreds of thousands of Nordics riding on horseback from France or Germany to the scorching hot Levant.  It is impossible physically as well as logistically.  Northern Europe, at the time, was an extremely poor and primitive region.  Writing, arts, and other means of communications were neglectable and only practiced by monks in an extinct language: Latin. 

After reading Roman and Muslim accounts, I could not find any cease fires or truce agreements between the warring kingdoms.  All happened randomly.  Yes, Romans did take Jerusalem, but Muslims kept Al Andaluz and Venetians kept Muslim forces at bay.  Strangely enough, Jerusalem fell to Muslims eventually but remained neutral having Muslim as well as Persian and Christian communities.  Freedom of religion was imperative in Jerusalem. 

I must address the European issue because they distorted history so bad that is imperative to clarify the facts.  As I stated before, Europeans did not play a significant role in these wars.  Yet, in Europe, we have heroes, major players and even places and kingdoms belonging to them, in the Levant.  The kingdom of Jerusalem and King Baldwin most specifically.  Also, there are the Knight Templars.  Why this illogical version is the one accepted by Westerners now?  I will explain as a conclusion.

Europeans of the 12^th century (1098) were beginning a renaissance from the end of Romans in Europe.  It was impossible to accept that Romans did not cease to exist.  Therefore, they told their citizens that “Crusaders” were going to recover the Holy Land from Muslims.  There was no media back then, so European common citizens had only one version to learn from.  They believed their kings.  Every war needs heroes, so they created an elite clerical force called The Templars (guardians of the temple).  As far as lay people in Europe knew, courageous European knights marched to the Levant to fight in the name of God. 

When European reinforcements left the Levant to go home, they grabbed everything they could from the area.  Chalices, chests, pieces of rare wood, jewelry, stained cloth, and even a jarred baby prepusium. All those “relics” came to enhance every church or mansion of donors to the “Crusades”.  Even today, the prepusium of “Jesus” is claimed to be in many churches in Europe (many?). 

Unluckily for the former “heroes” of the Crusades, the Templars, they knew the truth.  For that reason, I argue, they were exterminated one by one, and their knowledge silenced.  The European Crusades served one purpose and one purpose only: the recollection of charity and goods to support the Crusaders that may or may not had gone to the Levant.  This hoax lasted for decades until the heroes had to be exterminated.  Some even say that the bank used to keep all this wealth could still be found in Switzerland. 

This war of misinformation can still be seen in Europe and the US during the Iraq War and the Conflict in Ukraine.

Please, do comment and debunk my hypothesis.  I will be more than glad to have a civilized discussion about all my claims.

 jrs