Holliday et al.'s Gish gallop: bias against archaeoastronomy
Holliday et al. is highly misleading. In section 5.2 of their Gish gallop, Holliday et al. take aim against the astronomical interpretation of Gobekli Tepe's symbolism. Let's see what they have to say. My comments in italics.
5.2. Pseudoarchaeological Divined Date of the Impact Event
Sweatman and Tsikritsis (2017a, p 233) ask in their abstract, “Is Göbekli Tepe the
‘smoking gun’ for the Younger-Dryas cometary encounter, and hence for coherent
catastrophism?”
Correct. No evidence or arguments are provided by Holliday et al. against this.
Sweatman in his 2019 book Prehistory Decoded (see also Sweatman andTsikritsis, 2017a,b; Sweatman,
2017; Sweatman and Coombs, 2018; Sweatman 2020) claims the
date of the impact event is actually recorded on a carved stone pillar at the archaeological site of
Göbekli Tepe, Turkey, “Given what is now known about the Younger Dryas impact event,
summarised in Chapters 3 to 5, dated by the platinum spike in the GISP2 ice core to 10,940 BC
(using the ice core chronology), the most obvious possibility is that Pillar 43 records the date of
this event” (p 154). Pillar 43, known as the Vulture Stone, is part of a stone wall of Enclosure D
and is described “as one of the most artistically decorated pillars” and “most important artefacts
in the world” Sweatman (2019, p 31).
Correct. Still no evidence or arguments are provided by Holliday et al. against this.
Sweatman (2019, p 154) wrote, “This idea is supported by
the little headless man with an erection at the bottom of the Vulture Stone, who, presumably,
indicates the date is associated with death”. Sweatman (2019, p 154) further wrote, “Pillar 43,
likely represents the date 10,950 BC to within a few hundred years. This date is written using a
symbolic representation of the position of the sun relative to some constellations on the summer
solstice, where the constellations are represented as animal symbols in various poses.”
Correct. Still no evidence or arguments are provided by Holliday et al. against this. One has to wonder, though, why they selected this specific quote from Prehistory Decoded, as the evidence and arguments that link Pillar 43 and GT to the YD impact are far more extensively documented. What fascinates them especially about the little guy with an erection?
These
ideas appear to originate in the fanciful books by Andrew Collins (2014) Gobekli Tepe: Genesis
of the Gods: The Temple of the Watchers and the Discovery of Eden and by Graham Hancock
(2015) Magicians of the Gods, in which the later wrote, “it seems reasonable to accept the
summer solstice sunset, north of west, in the epoch of 9600 BC as a candidate for the scene
depicted on Pillar 43.”
This is misleading. Hancock favoured the winter solstice and therefore a modern date.
The premise of Graham Hancock’s book is that a highly advanced “lost
civilization” was destroyed by an impact at the onset of the YD/GS-1, mirroring ideas first
speculated upon by Donnelly (1883).
Whether this is correct or not is irrelevant because it is unrelated to the possibility that Pillar 43 displays a date or the truth of the YDIH. Clearly, Holliday et al. are attempting to bias the reader by providing a fallacious "associative" argument. They make similar comments in their introduction about the YDIH and Donnelly's comet. All these arguments are logical fallacies and irrelevant.
Archaeologists studying Göbekli Tepe have challenged these interpretations of Pillar 43.
Notroff et al. (2017, 60) wrote, “The chronological frame Sweatman and Tsikritsis [2017a, p
233, 246] suggest for Pillar 43 (10950 BC +/- 250 years) is still 700-1000 years older than the
oldest radiocarbon date so far available for Enclosure D (which stems from organic material
retrieved from a wall plaster matrix, … While there is evidence for later re-use of pillars (see
above), assuming such a long tradition of knowledge relating to an unconfirmed (ancient) cosmic
event appears extremely far-fetched. So far, earliest radiocarbon dates from Göbekli Tepe
coincide with the end of the Younger Dryas and not its onset.” Notroff et al. (2017, 60-61)
further wrote, “Sweatman’s and Tsikritsis’ contribution appears incredibly arbitrary, considering
images adorning just a few selected pillars” and “it is extremely problematic to pick out any one
pillar and draw far-reaching but isolated interpretations while leaving out its context. A purely
substitutional interpretation ignores these subtler but significant details. Details like the headless
man on the shaft of Pillar 43, interpreted as a symbol of death, catastrophe and extinction…,
silently omits the clearly emphasised phallus which must contradict the lifeless notion; rather,
this image implies a more versatile narrative behind these depictions.”
This quote is correct, but Holliday et al. do not cite Sweatman and Tsikritsis' (2017b) rebuttal of Notroff et al. (2017). Nor do Holliday et al. follow-up the quote from Notroff et al. (2017) with any discussion. It is as though the quote by itself is sufficient. Apparently, we should believe the site's archaeologists not because they have good arguments, but simply because they are archaeologists. Thus, Holliday et al. are effectively using another kind fallacious argument; an appeal to authority. This is poor science.
In their rebuttal, Sweatman and Tsikritsis (2017b) counter the arguments put forward by Notroff et al. (2017). More up-to-date arguments for why the astronomical interpretation of GT's symbolism should be preferred over other interpretations is provided in this submitted manuscript. See also this blog post. By not discussing these counter-arguments, Holliday et al. are guilty of bias, since they must know Sweatman and Tsikritsis' (2017b) rebuttal exists (since it is provided in the same pdf as Notroff et al. (2017) by the journal).
Ultimately, Holliday et al. provide no reasonable arguments against the astronomical interpretation of GT. Instead, they provide a fallacious associative argument and a quote from Notroff et al. without citing its rebuttal or discussing the evidence. This is seriously poor scholarship. And they have the bare-faced cheek to label the astronomical interpretation as pseudoarchaeological? Clearly, this label should be applied instead to their own poor scholarship.
Of course, all this has no bearing on the truth of the YD impact. If Sweatman and Tsikritsis (2017a) are wrong it has no influence on the YDIH because it is simply impossible for a misinterpretation of carvings on Pillar 43 13,000 years after the impact to have any bearing on whether the impact occurred. The only relevant evidence in this debate is the physical evidence from the YDB and associated environmental changes set in motion by the impact. So this entire section is one long fallacy.
One has to wonder, then, given that a misinterpretation of Pillar 43 at GT cannot be used as evidence against the YDIH, why Holliday et al. included this section in their review. What is their motivation, because it is clearly an irrelevant argument.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
M.B. Sweatman (2017) "Catastrophism through the Ages, and a Cosmic Catastrophe at the Origin of Civilisation", Archaeology and Anthropology: Open Access 1(2), 30-34.M. Sweatman "Prehistory Decoded" (2019, Matador, UK).
Comments
Post a Comment