Hi. Hello, and välkommen to digging up ancient aliens.

I'm Fredrik, and I use my background in archaeology to examine

these strange claims that you encounter on your telly.

This is the last chapter in the ancient Apocalypse saga.

And we started this whole journey by examining where Graham Hancock

got some of his inspiration for his writings.

And we have since then gone through different places that Hancock

claims is evidence for an ancient

lost Ice Age civilizations.

And it's not going too well for Hancock so far.

When we looked a bit more deeper and skeptically at the different places

and myths that he has declared to be evidence for his ideas.

And if you start here, don't worry.

You can see these episodes or listen to them out of order.

But I recommend that later on, go back to episode 30,

where we started this journey and follow us from the beginning.

And this is episode 33 and we have some fun things to discuss.

First, we head out to the Bahamas and they sit at Bimini Road.

We actually looked at this site previously back in episode ten

when we went with the, Graham Hancock actually,

when he went on Ancient Aliens in the episode “Underwater worlds.”

And then we will get the into some old maps especially Piri Reis map,

that said to describe very accurately the entirety of the known world.

and learn that things are not always what they seem.

Later we’re visited by Jens Notroff,

who has worked on Göbekli Tepe.

And he will share some of his knowledge about the site.

And we will close out the episode by examining

the astronomical claims

presented in the show by Martin Sweatman.

And remember that

you find sources, resources and further reading suggestions at our website.

Digging up Ancient Aliens dot com.

There you will also find the contact info if you notice any mistakes

or have any suggestions.

And if you like the podcast, I would appreciate

if left one of those fans if five star reviews that they heard so much about.

And if you are viewing this on YouTube, well,

give it a thumbs up and hit that subscribe button.

Now we've finished with the preparations.

Let's dig into the episode.

Bimini is a

tropical paradise in the heart of Bahamas,

not more than a skip and a jump from Miami.

And this small island might be pint sized,

but it packs a punch when it comes to natural beauty.

Imagine diving in the crystal clear turquoise waters

and swimming among schools of vibrant fish and the graceful sea turtles.

Or lounging on one of Bimini pristine beaches.

Feeling the soft sounds between your toes and listening

to the gentle waves lapping at the shore.

Oh, it's pure bliss.

But Bimini is more than a pretty face.

The island has a rich history of culture, and you can explore its fascinating

remnants of their rum running past.

And the Bimini Museum is also a must see where the exhibits

celebrating the island's unique heritage.

But are we here for rum and beaches?

Sadly not, our drinks served in coconuts

with little umbrellas has to wait for another time.

We're here due to the geological feature called the Bimini Road,

a formation that Hancock regards

to be evidence of his lost ancient civilization,

back in episode three, Ghost of the Drowned World.

Now the whole episode starts with some more lamenting

about archeologists who do not want to do research.

Therefore, no scientific study has occurred at Bimini Road.

But how did this of rocks

become a thesis for the locations of Atlantis?

I give you a hint.

Its origin is from one of our, well, usual suspects.

Can you guess who?

I'll give you some time.

If you thought it was Edgar Cayce.

Great job.

Edgar Cayce or the sleeping prophet are by now familiar name to us is,

if not the creator, at least the inspiration for Bimini Road

and did speak on Atlantis and Bimini Islands a couple of times.

And if you go online, you will find, trying to find information

about Bimini Road.

You’ll most likely stumble upon one of Edgar Cayce’s

supposed reading that goes as follow.

“A portion of the temples may yet be discovered

under the slime of ages and sea water near Bimini...

Expect it in ‘68 or ’69 - not so far away.”

Now, if you start to dig around in this quote, you will learn

that the first part comes from a vision in 1933.

Cayce here talks about where a blueprint for

some sort of Atlantean power source will be found.

And these blueprints are stored.

Well, according to Casey in three locations,

in Egypt, in the Yucatan and quote:

“in the

sunken portion of Atlantis, or Poseidia,

where a portion of the temples may yet be discovered under the slime of ages

of sea water—near what is known as Bimini,

off the coast of Florida.”

As for the second part of the quote, we don’t

find it until 1938 (in prophecy 958-3),

as a date for when the first parts of Atlantis

will again rise up of the water.

“And Poseidia will be among

the first portions of Atlantis to rise again.

Expect it in sixty-eight and sixty-nine (‘68 and’ 69); not so far away!”

The 68 and 69 dates were added to the quote later

to make his claim more accurate

You see, supporters of Cayce did, in a lack of a better

word, discover Bimini Road in 1968.

So to get, you know, the master to have have been the right

all this time, they declared the discovery and the prophecy was connected.

The team who found the Rock and Hancock both agree

on that these simply can't be natural formations.

Nature can't create these type of structures.

But if there's something nature is incredibly

good at is creating incredible shape, something all new archeology is discovered

during their first excavation or during their field school.

What we're looking at and what Hancock claims is wrong or impossible in his show

is simply Beach Rocks, a distinctive

and rapidly forming type of rock that develops

near intertidal tidal levels at the beach.

The secret to its formation lies in the regular tidal fluxes

that force calcium-carbonate-rich waters through the sand.

Scientists believe that the combination of evaporation and off

gassing of carbon dioxide help trigger

the transpiration of calcium carbonate.

And over time, tiny, tiny

aragonite crystals starts to form between the sand grains,

and these crystals, they act like like glue, gradially

uniting the grains to create

a sort of hardened limestone.

And the result is a stunning and unique rock

that we today know as beachrock.

I also want to point out that these pillow form

stones are found in other locations, too.

As James Randi pointed out these can be found in Australia, for example.

And he wondered if maybe the Atlanteans

had some sort of enclave over there too,

even though nobody else seemed to believe that.

That was a joke [laughter].

And this

process doesn't need that much time to form.

We have examples of human skeletal remains,

and even the World War II artifacts embedded in this type of rock.

Several different tests has actually been carried out

on the site opposite to what Hancock claims.

For example, Shin and Thompskin took

17 core drillings and when analyzed.

They revealed that these blocks all have identical strata.

We would not expect to see this

in quarried blocks, since they come from different places at the quarry.

But we know that this is something that we actually would expect

if this was a natural formation like bedrock.

And the great thing about limestone is that it

tend to incorporate the organic material.

And due to this, we can actually C-14 date this type of rock,

or rather we can date the organic material within the stone.

And it has been done, several samples were taken from the Bimini

stones and the oldest they found was from around

that 3510 BP.

So the rocks are not even formed when Atlantis, according to Hancock

and all the other people, claims that it was destroyed,

something Hancock's leave out of the whole discussion.

But we're not done there.

Another big issue for Hancocks’ theory, is that the Atlantic Ocean

seemed to not have room for a sunken continent here.

Our understanding of the movement of the tectonic plates

indicated that a continent couldn’t have been submerged in the Atlantic.

With all these things in mind, it’s strange that Hancock claims

that “mainstream” science refuses to investigate Bimini road.

As we've discussed, scientists has looked into the claims

from its discovery of the site, and nothing has been there.

We stopped, simply spend time and money looking into it.

I don't know if Hancock is aware that these tests has occurred

or that this investigation was performed, but

if people

want to take him seriously, he should at least read these tests

and maybe he should start to finance new tests.

And if the second round of tests shows

a different result, than the initial tests maybe we need to reopen

the investigation, maybe we need to reopen.

But as the evidence is right now, it's solid as a rock

and there's nothing more than, well,

rocks.

Now maybe

one of the more strange segments

throughout the series found in the same episode as Bimini Road.

Of course, while on the boat in the clear Bahama

waters, Hancock brings up a copy of a Piri Reis’s map.

Now Piri Reis’s, or Ahmed Muhiddin Piri, was an admiral within

the Ottoman fleet and a cartographer who lived between

1465 and 1553 C.E.

While he did some of the most detailed maps of the Mediterranean

Sea, he is maybe most known for his world map.

Originally this map was in four parts, but sadly, only one piece,

the one depicting the South west

map, has survived until our days On this map,

Piri Reis lists his sources for the map as follows:

“No such map exists in our age.

Your humble servant is its author and brought it into being.

It is based mainly on twenty charts and mappa mundi,

one of which is drawn in the time of Alexander

the Great, and is known to the Arabs as Caferiye [dja ‘grafiye]”

“This map is the result of comparison with eight such [dja ‘grafiye] maps,

one Arab map of India, four new Portuguese maps drawn

according to the geometrical methods of India and China,

and also the map of the western lands drawn by Columbus; such that this map of

the seven seas is as accurate and reliable

as the latter map of this region.”

Now, both Hancock and I can agree that Piri existed

and he drew quite accurate maps for his

But Graham has some,

well, rather exciting ideas on how we should interpret

this world map by Piri Reis.

First Graham commits a fairly common mistake.

He well, the island, he points out

as Cuba is not in fact Cuba.

So when he says, “Efforts have been made

to explain it as a badly drawn map of Cuba.

And that just doesn’t fly for me because you can’t

get it wrong.” he is actually correct.

And if we read what Piri wrote about the island on the map,

we know that he called this Hispaniola.

Today this is part of the Dominican Republic.

And the location of the first Spanish colonization attempt, La Isabella.

And if you look at it, you will note that

the island, first of all, is facing in the wrong direction, direct.

And if we compare it to, you know, modern maps,

the east coast has become the north coast, for example.

But it's not uncommon that some landmasses were turned

for some reason on all the maps.

For example, we see Greenland based on about 90 degrees more than once.

It's twisted on several maps.

Hispaniola might have been rotated 90 degrees because Columbus,

when it first arrived at the New World, thought that he had come to Cipango.

And then if we compare other maps from this era, such as Behaim

Globe, Bordone, and Isularium, Piri Reis match pretty well

with their renditions of Cipango or Japan as we know it today.

But where is Cuba?

Well, the Columbus and other explorers thought that today's Cuba

was actually part of the mainland.

So we find it above Panama.

So much for the eerily accurate map that Hancock claims that this is.

Now, Piri Reis has marked this location aCabo y Punta Ornofay.

Today this area is close to Rio San Juan and is pretty clear

that Piri based these maps segment on the Columbus idea

that this was a large mass landmass that was stretching far up north.

All right.

So the map may not be as accurate as depicted in popular media,

but how about the idea that Piri has drawn

Bimini Road on the map?

Now, Hancock claims that on the island, we now know

depicts Hispaniola, a row of blocks can’t be mountains.

Graham’s reason for this is that Piri Reis

supposedly drew mountains way way differently.

Since it's not a mountain range...

Well it has to be Bimini road.

Except Piri drew other maps.

Take for example, his book on Mediterranean maps

named Kitab-ı Bahriye.

In it we find maps of Crete, Sicily and other locations that do have mountains

which look rather the same

as what we see on this world map.

So it seems as if he doesn't really have much luck with

Hancock's claims regarding the northern part of the map.

But what about the fact that it actually depict Antarctica?

Does mainstream science have any clever explanations for that?

Well, as a matter of fact, we we do.

First of all, if what we see here is not part of South America, did

the cartographer just draw Brazil

and then just skipped directly to Antarctica?

And if that were the case, wouldn't they be more logical

if they left a little gap between Brazil and Antarctica?

Just not connect it all the way.

Well, if we were to straight up the curled up part, it would be a better

match for Argentina and the Falkland Islands, for example, than Antarctica.

And we should not forget the explanations

that Piri wrote about the different areas on the map.

Looking a bit closer.

We see that part of Antarctica or “Antarctica” within quotation describes

by Piri Reis as follows: “This country is barren.

Everything is desolate and in ruins and it is said that large serpents

are found here” “For this reason, the Portuguese infidels

did not land on these shores, and these shores are said to be very hot.”

About the

small island, it’s claimed that “These islands are not inhabited,

but spices are plentiful.” Not really how we would describe Antarctica.

Right? You might now yell “Stop!

What about the other map from Oronteus Finaeus?”

Well, this 1531 map is one of those cases where if you start to read

what the creator wrote on the map, the mystery kind of just disappear.

For the landmass, some suggest, is Antarctica.

He has written “The southern land recently discovered, but not yet

completely known.” And if you read the longer legend at the bottom,

we learn that Phineas did not base this map on other older maps.

But these are brand new.

And the land area that land area that Finaeus calls “Terra

Australis” is most likely Tierra Del Fuego.

Discovered just a couple of years earlier, ten years earlier in 1520.

But the idea of a southern landmass

had already theorized by Ptolemy around second century. C.E.

So when the news about Tierra del Fuego reached Finaeus he wrote it in

as the theorized landmass, but added that it was not yet adequately explored.

Hancock’s claims regarding Bimini Road and the Piri Reis map seem

highly unlikely now that we know

more about these sites and these maps.

Like sand castles, they crumble and they're washed away

by the waves of knowledge.

But let's leave the sandy beaches and our coconut drinks.

For now at least.

We will head east and investigate a site

that Hancock speculate is a warning,

a warning from the past.

Welcome to the Urfa Province in southwest Turkey.

In this semi-arid Mediterranean landscape, located in the steep

hills beneath the Taurus Mountains, we find an extraordinary site.

Göbekli Tepe, possibly one of the oldest Megalithic sites.

I could have myself talked about the site, but

I decided to bring in absolute ringer.

Without further ado, let me introduce you

to our next guest.

And then I want to welcome Jens Notroff to the show.

Welcome Jens.

Hi and thanks for having me.

Would you mind maybe introduce yourself a little bit to the audience

that might not be too familiar with your work previously.

Yes, of course.

My name is Jens, Jens Nostroff, I am an archeologist currently working

or for some time already working at the German Archeological Institute in Berlin.

And I was many, many years, I think more than 12 or 14 years

involved in the excavations at Pre-Pottery Neolithic Göbekli Tepe,

which probably is familiar to to some of your viewers.

And we were directing excavations,

working at the site together with the local museum in Çayönü.

You have been involved in the Tepe Telegrams.

It's a sort of blog, as I come to understand it.

Would you mind many share a little bit on that project how it came to be?

Yeah, that's that's quite an interesting question

because there was a point when the site of Göbekli Teppe

reached some recognition in the media.

And there was a lot of popular media reporting about it, and those

a lot of people were interested in the archeology of this side and the finds.

And we soon noticed that the actual academic work,

that the actual research results where pretty much

almost invisible in the in the public discussion

of of the site and a lot of the narrators that were floating around

were dominated by now, let's say, distorted,

distorted ideas about this site or plain wrong information

about the excavations and the finds until a point there it really.

Yeah.

Pretty much dove into into pseudo-archeology so really the

factual totally wrong kind of information

floating around and being multiplied and the discussion and before.

Okay, something's going going bad

if the actual research data which is available.

Which is there is pretty much not noticed in this whole discussion

and that was the idea to make it much more accessible

then an academic journals or conferences.

And to have this kind of online repository of information with basic information

about the site and with our ongoing research, ongoing excavations,

just to offer a small glimpse into the in the state of research and work.

And it worked and the end the the blogg.

The format was a blogg form.

It was was well received and read.

And when we talk about Göbekli Tepe, what do we really refer to then?

Is it religious sites or.

Yeah, hitting, hitting the the hotspot right right away.

Well, if you, we, forward back a little bit

what is Göbekli Tepe and when was it discovered.

Oh yeah yeah let's maybe let's start this way and the site is already known

as a as a Neolithic site since a survey in the 1960s,

a joint survey by the University of Chicago and Istanbul.

And the report about this was published a bit later in the eighties.

And they had notes that among many Neolithic sites in the region,

some of them already excavated, for example, like famous Çayönü.

But there's no

small amount of.

Göbekli Tepe was noteworthy because a lot of Flint

stone tools of Flint stone debris was lying around.

And those it was under it.

And this list, but more or less forgotten because there was nothing else

significantly to be observed on first glance.

Then in the 1990s and 1994, I think

Klaus Schmidt, the former project leader of the Göbekli Tepe excavations,

was this this list and had a survey list in hand

visiting the area, visiting some of the places noted on this list.

He also went to go back to Tepe and he had the advantage,

but he previously worked on another site nearby at Nevali Çori.

There for the first time, these characteristic

T-shaped pillars were discovered of the smaller kind.

Never literary dates a bit later when when you tip, it's also a Neolithic site,

but it resembles more what we also found at the temple.

The smaller structures, the smaller pillars of a height

of two meters, about two meters or less.

And with this knowledge he was able to recognize

that some of these stone, small stone parts

sticking out of the surface that could tip up where indeed worked.

Stones much resembling the tops of these T-shaped pillars.

And of course, this quiet is his interest, his attraction.

And that's how excavation work started.

Bear, together with the local museum in Çayönü, offer the next biggest city

and funded by the German Research Foundation and

in a year ending up in a large scale

research project at the Orient Department

and the Istanbul Department of the German Archeological Institute.

And the dating of the site,

what they set data to currently and how has this date been concluded?

What evidence do they have for it currently?

So currently

the site dates to the

pre pottery Neolithic that is the 10th millennium B.C.

basically pre pottery, Neolithic phase A and B.

So this is the chronological or the relative chronological background.

We are we are moving in.

These results are, first of all, of course,

achieved by dating the material culture through the typical archeological method

to comparison and analogies which are very typical stone tools

like projectile points, arrowheads, but also blades and knives

and they all are without a question,

a dating to to the pre pottery in their culture

because we know these tools from many, many other sites since the

the the whole cultural complex was defined in the 1950s by by Kathleen Kenyon.

But of course, this is not the only only basis of of the chronology

at the of we also did some other testings

and some other methods where we used to to obtain data for

or for the finds and features for example most famously a radiocarbon dating

where are some some pieces

of charcoal found in the wall cluster of some of the walls of Göbekli

Temple, which dates to the 10th Millennium B.C.

and at least give us a date when this wall plaster was applied to to the wall.

Other dates are coming from from inside the wall,

from the mortar between beyond the wall.

So there's some reliable radiocarbon dates,

definitely supporting the already achieved archeological dating.

And do we know of for about how long the site was in use

especially the more temple like area?

I think the.

Question is yeah I mean since we're covering

our Pre-Pottery in Neolithic phase A and B,

there is some used time visible there, it's not quite clear.

At least that was that was my latest state of knowledge.

Of course, work is going on and with all the other sites around

being excavated, this picture is suddenly changing over time.

But what I wanted to say is that it's not quite clear if there was a constant

occupation, constant use of this side, or if there was a recurring use.

People were coming back, repairing sites, reusing sites.

So overall, this this later structures, we certainly have used them

going well into the eighth millennium B.C.

So it's quite a long a longer

time of of use of people being present at the sites the site.

This is, usually if we go back to these more fringe

ideas, presented as something that there broke archeology.

Why this notion often repeated on how Göbekli Tepe broke

or revolutionized idea within the archeology.

Yeah I I'm aware of these these narratives, that it it forces us to

to rethink and rewrite our our previous image of of hunter gatherers

which might have to do

with the distorted idea of what we thought

about hunter gatherers

previously.

I think a lot of of the discussion being repeated

is drawing from a very, very old concept of the Neolithic,

and it's not reflecting the last 50 years of of ongoing research

where I mean, Göbekli Tepe in the beginning

seemed like a special outlier, but it was not totally unexpected.

We knew about monumental architecture

related to the pre pottery Neolithic from the excavations at Jericho,

for example, this famous tower already is a quite impressive monument.

We already knew about the the need of repeated

gatherings of mobile groups to exchange

information, to strengthen social cohesion and so on from his from historic

analogies, from ethnographic analogies, and also from the archeological record.

If you're looking at at the native sites,

for example, where there are similar ideas we already discussed.

So Göbekli tempers seemed so special also to archeologists

because it was this strong focus on monumental architecture,

which was all banned and which was a huge site compared

to two other sites of of of the period when we are looking at the settlements.

We already knew from Çayönü, for example, which has a very distinct architecture

as well, and also occasionally these special purpose buildings,

but not in this massive, massive

focus of this large number of special purpose buildings.

So this was quite interesting.

But meantime, a lot of other sites in the area

and excavation, this image also is getting quite sharper.

And it shows us that this is a very specific phenomenon of the local culture.

So Göbekli Tepe is not an outlier, it's not an exception.

It's part of a number of larger sites in the very region,

probably a verify finding it by looking at the other parts

of the material of culture and the iconography architecture.

So we may cover an area of almost 200 kilometers in the

in the surroundings covering this communication

zone of of this community, if you would like to put it like this.

And do we know anything about how they construction?

When did they use stones that was available local or was it importing?

They found any tools.

In the

lucky situation where the the quarries are right next to the actual mounds

or the the rock plateau surrounding the mound of Göbekli Tepe.

And this is where the quarries are situated as well.

And they know this because we for one,

we found that the negative shapes where stones were removed.

We also found a two year situation as there half finished

or the remains of finished T-pillars there lying around and a lot of tools

were lying around as well.

So we know which tools they use as well.

And we are so sure that we found the quarries

because there are some unfinished T-pillars

still in the quarries as they were broken.

At some point.

And those are not used anymore, not not transported these

like 300 meters of what it is to to the mound.

So we know where the stone is coming from.

We know the tools.

So there's really no big mystery about how they made it.

Of course, we cannot say for sure how

they were moving, going from A to B because we were not there.

But we see that very clear the past.

There are there's a lot of sediment,

for example, on the rock plateau as well, which must have come from somewhere.

So the idea that they maybe used soil or something to

to get kind of a path, there is something

we might discuss about ideas.

That's the thing in archeology, we don't know the truth,

but we

can offer possible scenarios and explanations.

And we are we are fair enough to admit that we don't know something.

Maybe this is what makes the real research data less sexy

even than these absolute narratives coming from from other other actors.

Yeah, it's hard to compete with levitation guns and whatever

the Ancient Aliens have proposed for moving this blocks.

But do you know what sort of materials?

Is it tuff?

I know that Turkey is usually quite volcanic.

Is it Tuff or..

There is a volcanic stone around basalt mostly which was used for

for vessels in particular and for for grinding stones.

The pillars themselves are made from limestone,

local limestone, which is and this is also quite a nice explanation

or a nice contribution to how they actually crafted this place.

The limestone there is naturally appearing in and layers of banks.

So as all always a bank of limestone of a certain thickness.

And if you want to cut such a raw pillar from from the stone,

you basically just follow these banks and remove these banks of stones.

The limestone is rather soft.

It's easily worked with flint stone for sure.

I tried this.

I can personally, personally confirm this is possible.

So it's there's no magic needed to

to cut the local limestone, but the available tools at the time.

Do we know what it might have?

I know that Hancock talked a lot about astronomical alignments within the site.

Are we are aware about any?

Or how is the, or has it been any studies

archeoastronomy for this site?

This definitely is is a topic we also we've also looking into

and something I personally wouldn't exclude because

if there's a possibility where it is a relation

to people serving the sky, of course that would be an interesting observation.

And we know from other sites like famously, for example, Stonehenge,

that there are certain concepts integrated in the architecture as well.

The thing about Göbekli Tepe is that to my knowledge so far

there is no convincing evidence to link any

astronomical phenomenon to the alignment of the pillars

and all the things discussed so far and be addressed.

They basically usually address these things on the blog as well.

Are not convincing because they either are drawing

from a very small number of samples, basically cherry picking

just a few examples and explaining these, but leaving out the total arrest,

which then would remain unexplained and was relying on rather anecdotal data

or they are not keeping in mind that what we are seeing at Göbekli

Tepe is just the last part of a very long activity at this.

We know for sure that there was a lot of rebuilding and rearranging

activity happening all the time and the pillars were reused,

but at other enclosures, at other buildings,

some pillars are now obviously

standing and the wrong in the wrong place.

Compared to their original position.

Some are turned around, some are reworked,

all the reliefs are erased, new reliefs are added.

So if there was a certain meaning

to the arrangement of the pillars, it was changed multiple times.

And this makes it very difficult for me

to project a certain certain concept to the lay out.

And we should not forget that a lot of the building

historical research done on the site suggests that the

these buildings, they're subterranean

and probably likely roofed.

So this again makes a direct, direct connection of the pillars

and something happening in the sky rather difficult, in my opinion.

Why was the site abandoned?

Do we know if there was any?

I know Handcock bring up that it was ritually buried.

Is this true

or do we know, since you bring up that there's half finished piece as well?

So is that sudden abandonment or was it a planned abandonment?

Now we're touching the topic, which makes it difficult

to to be conclusive here because this is an ongoing excavation

so that the colleagues are still working on the site

but still excavated new finds and features.

Of course, over time this new finds our interpretation may change as well.

And it did here. So too.

I know that in the beginning

one of the ideas we were discussing that

maybe the the burial of the enclosures

was part of their construction concept from the very beginning

that it was the idea already to bury these these buildings.

This is an idea coming basically from the huge

5.5 meter high pillars being being found in very shallow pedestals.

And we really had a difficult time to imagine

how these pillars might have stand upright for such a long time

if there was no kind of backfilling, supporting, supporting the pillars.

Meanwhile, the further excavation and further building research

and the discussion of maybe a roof putting pressure from above on on these pillars

or maybe wooden constructions supporting the pillars as well.

And there's a lot more, more dynamic in the discussion

of how these backfilling events happened, actually.

I mean, they were backfilled in the end because we are now excavating them.

So the sediment must have come from somewhere.

The the filling of this these buildings

seemed very homogeneous.

In the first process of excavation, there was a lot of rubble

from the from the quarries.

There was a lot of stone tools, a lot of bones, remains

of of meals, actually a lot of hunted animals.

This is, by the way, why we know where the the economy of the people,

active advocate type of hunter gatherers, all the animals and plants

found so far there

or the remains of animals and plants are strictly wild species, hunted species.

But to return to the to the to the filling events, we now

with a lot of stratigraphic analysis and building history,

building historical analysis, we now have a much, much

more differentiated picture available of what happened there.

And this this is research still in progress and not not finished.

This seems as of yet that we have to think

of both intentional backfilling events at some point

and also natural filling events

for example by earthquakes or erosion.

And these these two events may well be linked together as well,

because maybe if the site was not in for a certain time

and then an earthquake happened, some things were toppled over,

walls were collapsing, people were returning.

They may have just cleaned it, but not removed all the rubble.

So this is where we have these natural and artificial filling events

may go well, hand and hand.

And also over a longer time than we maybe originally thought.

But again, this is book and research, and I don't want to to take away

any information from the colleagues still working there still coming up with

this interpretation falls is.

No and that's something

important to keep in mind with archaeology, it's a science

like much else and information change as new research is conducted.

And we're happy to admit this.

So this this idea but it's a secret archeology, legal dogma.

And we want to we want to defend this dogma of forever.

It's ridiculous because if if it's one thing changing

constantly in archeology, it's our idea of of what these finds may represent.

And we're happy to get new ideas and to get a step further,

to get another puzzle piece for for the picture.

So yeah. Yeah.

That's the whole idea with, with the science

and why many of us got into it from the start to learn new things.

It's not that we want to sit and read the same book over and over until we retire,

but Jens, I will let you go.

Is there anywhere, listeners or viewers can go to read more from you?

I definitely recommend to have a look at the Teppe

Telegrams blog, but we'll be relaunched.

Oh, it has been relaunched after break over

the the the pandemic book onside was also limited.

So colleagues will have our working a lot with the science.

But now I'm expecting to that the blog will show

new information and inform about ongoing work in research.

And maybe I think there's also a lot of further

literature collected and what people would like to

to to read or to find further information as an FAQ about the site.

So I think this would be the first resource I suggest to

to visit for.

So that also the idea is discussed what the site actually is, which is not easy.

It's probably not a temple or ritual site or only a ritual site

as has been discussed in a lot of formats.

But we would like to call the social have a meeting place for people

because this notion of ritual versus profane is a very, very modern distinction

and does not have at all to be applied

to the prehistoric people using the site as well.

Yeah, yeah.

Religion can be a communal sense, so to say, as we see in the other culture,

that you can have a social gathering combined

with basically ritual services at the same time.

Jens, thank you so much for your time.

Thank you for inviting me.

Thank you so much for your

time Jens, and his website and project links

can be found in the show notes to this episode.

Something we didn't bring up during this talk was the ideas of Martin

Sweatman, who appears in the show, or rather Dr.

Martin Sweatman, who is by day doing

chemical engineering at the University of Edinburgh.

BBut by night, he is researching archeoastronomy at Göbekli Tepe.

His idea is that the builders of Göbekli Tepe

did carve astronomical constellations on the pillars

at the site as a message to future generations.

Sweatman claims that especially one pillar we see depicting

we see in the show depicting a constellation of Gemini,

Scorpio, Virgio, Piecies and other Greek constantly nations,

and these constellations with many claims lined up with the equinoxes

as they were about 10,950

BCE plus or -250 years usually.

And why is this important?

Well, it's the supposed date for when the meteor strike

in the Younger Dryas Impact hypothesis took place.

A log that's a large part of Hancock's theory

why his super civilization disappeared.

But as we learned, Göbekli Tepe wasn't constructed until the Pre-Pottery

Neolithic a or around the

the earliest 9600 BCE.

Now Sweatman hand waves this away

explain this 2000 year gap with, you know, oral traditions.

But as you might have noted, I did say that

Sweatman used the Greek constellations.

These are more or less the same that we use today, but

their origin is actually not the Greek.

The Greeks, imported most of their constellation

from Mesopotamia, especially from Babylonians.

Now, there were some changes.

They didn't just copy paste,

they changed it a little bit so the teacher wouldn't recognize it.

I think we all know Aries, Latin for a ram, and what the Greeks called

this constellation; the Babylonians referred to

it as “Hired worker”.

So there's quite a difference between a ram and a human worker.

We see this in other signs; Gemini is in Greece twins,

but among the Babylonians, it was not one set of twins.

It was two sets of twins or a crook or in some cases,

“The true shepherd of Anu.”

Pisces that's two fishers in Greece.

But the Babylonians called this a swallow.

Virgio was among the Babylonian described as a furrow,

the trench that appears when you plow your fields.

While, as we know in the Greek, they call this

the Virgin or the maiden.

So there are a couple of constellations that's similar, like a Scorpio.

That's the same in both cultures,

but most of them have their unique twists between the cultures.

Now, these Babylonian constellation can be traced back quite some time.

The earliest account we find about them is within a document called MUL-APIN.

Why the oldest clay we have preserved is from around 700 BCE.

It's argued that the texts go back a bit further than that.

Some speculate that it's around 1300

to 1000 BCE.

Note that while these constellations go back 3000 years, it's

far from the 10,000 BCE date that's suggested by Sweatman.

And even if we use the 9600 BCE date,

when we know that the construction proabably started at Göbekli Tepe,

it's still eight thousand years between the earliest

assumed assumed account in Babylonian sources.

And that, you know, their account would remain largely intact

for 8000 years, is nearly well, it's nearly impossible.

And we know that Babylon was changed the account between the times.

We see this in the written parts.

And the Greeks

definitely made a lot of changes rather immediately when they imported it.

Sweatman and his coauthor, Tsikritsis, another chemical engineer,

claimed a depiction of a frog, ibex

and a bird are representations of Virgo, Gemini and Pisces.

The reasoning was that they feel that

these symbols represent the depictions

as the constellations would have looked

like around 10,000 BCE.

But as you know, this doesn't

really match the Babylonian sources or the Greek sources.

They do not really explain that difference or why there's a difference.

Instead, Sweatman claims it's probable, and this is what they see

in their reconstructions of the night sky at the time.

So they have these basically done a Rorschach test and declare this evidence.

Sweatman and Tsikritsis claim that they are statistically

99% accurate or correct.

How they arrived at today's statistical conclusion is quite dubious at best,

especially when he does not present

in the actual logical the remains to support his ideas.

And as Rebecca Bradlee put it, they assume that the carvings

are astrological groupings without testing their evidence for that assumption.

Well, it's not strange that Sweatman was invited from the start.

He had previously written on the Graham Hancock's blog and

is part of the why the YDI crowd,

while he might be a decent chemical engineer,

is quite lousy archaeologist.

Well, Sometimes intelligent people can be their worst enemy

since they think they can’t be fooled.

Unfortunately for Sweatman, he managed to trick himself quite well.

And here we will close out the Hancock saga for now at least.

Maybe we will return one day and have another look at Hancock's ideas.

There are things we have left out and we have a whole bibliography

to go through.

Feel free to reach out and let me know if you want more of this type of content.

There's a lot of pseudo archaeology we can look at and discuss, but next time

we will be back with Giorgio and the gang to dig after more Ancient Aliens.

But then remember to leave a positive review anywhere you can,

such as iTunes, Spotify or here on YouTube or recommend us to a friend.

That's even better, actually.

And I will also recommend you to visit the digging up

ancient aliens dot com or ancient apocalypse dot

net where you can find more info about me on the podcast.

You can also find me on most social media sites

if you have comments and corrections

or suggestions or if you want the writer all caps email

well, you find my contact info on the website.

There.

You will also find all the sources and resources used to create this podcast

and you will also find further reading suggestions.

If you want to learn more about the subjects we bring up.

Sandra Marteleur created the intro music, and our outro is by the band

called Trallskruv, who sings their song “tin foil hat.”

Links to both these artists will be found in the show notes.

Until next time, keep shoveling that science!