New paper submitted: Origin of some of the ancient Greek constellations via analysis of Pillar 43 at Göbekli Tepe
Origin of some of the ancient Greek constellations via analysis of Pillar 43 at Göbekli Tepe
Martin B. Sweatman and Dimitrios Gerogiorgis
School of Engineering, The University of Edinburgh, The
King's Buildings, Sanderson Building, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JL, United
Kingdom.
email: martin.sweatman@ed.ac.uk
key words: Greek constellations, Göbekli Tepe, Pillar 43
ABSTRACT
We re-evaluate an astronomical interpretation of Pillar 43
at Göbekli Tepe in southern Turkey. Our analysis supports earlier conclusions
that at least some of the animal symbols on this pillar almost certainly represent
constellations related to those of the ancient Greeks. Presumably, the Greeks,
Mesopotamians and other Neolithic, Bronze and Iron-age cultures towards the
eastern end of the Mediterranean region were influenced in their choice of
constellations and symbols by this pre-existing knowledge.
1.
Introduction
This work investigates the origin of some of the ancient
Greek constellations that we continue to use in modern astronomy. They are
similar to some of those used by Mesopotamian cultures (Rogers, 1998a, 1998b),
but their origin is an open problem, despite great interest. Here, we investigate
the possibility that precursors to some of the Greek constellations already appear
at Göbekli Tepe, an Epipalaeolithic archaeological
site in southern Turkey. If this hypothesis is correct, then it suggests this
pre-existing astronomical knowledge likely influenced the selection of
constellations and their symbols in later Neolithic, Bronze and Iron-age
cultures in the eastern Mediterranean region.
Figure 1. Right: Pillar 43 at Göbekli Tepe (photo courtesy
of Alistair Coombs). Middle: a sketch showing the symbols uncovered so far on
Pillar 43. Left: a scene around Scorpius in Stellarium using the Modern
constellation set; the teapot asterism of Sagittarius is in yellow.
Sweatman and Tsikritsis (2017a) (henceforth ST17a) already proposed
that animal symbols on the broad side of Pillar 43 in Enclosure D at Göbekli
Tepe are very likely pre-cursors to some of the Greek constellations (see
Figure 1). They also claimed that the scene on this pillar signified a date
using precession of the equinoxes, and they claimed that this date and other
symbols at the site indicate that the pillar was a memorial to the Younger
Dryas comet impact, circa 10,850 BCE. If true, then it suggests a form
of astronomical protowriting more sophisticated than the one predicted by
Gurshtein (2005) to begin around 6000 BCE in the Fertile Crescent was already
known by the time of this impact event. It also suggests the Younger Dryas
comet impact might have played an important role in the development of
civilisation (Sweatman, 2019, 2024).
Notroff et al. (2017) disputed this idea, calling it
“extremely far-fetched”, yet they did not question ST17a's probabilistic analysis directly. However, Sweatman and Tsikritsis (2017b) rebutted their
opinions and argued that their probabilistic analysis of the symbols should
have priority in a scientific debate. Later work by Sweatman and Coombs (2019)
strongly suggests similar knowledge was already known in Palaeolithic Europe
and that many cave paintings of animals there also represent similar
constellations. Therefore, Göbekli Tepe’s symbols could be seen as a
development in Palaeolithic cave art. This was already suggested by Schmidt
(2011), the original lead excavator of the site.
More recently, geometric symbols carved on the same pillar
at Göbekli Tepe have been interpreted by Sweatman
(2024) to represent a solar calendar (see Figure 2). This would be the oldest
known such calendar by around 6000 years. Indeed, the existence of this
calendar on the pillar practically confirms that ST17a’s original
interpretation is almost certainly correct. That is, ST17a made a prediction,
supported by a strong probabilistic case, that Pillar 43 symbolises a date
using a special day in the year (the summer solstice) and precession. Then, in
2024 Sweatman showed how geometric symbols (the V symbols and square symbols)
on the main part of Pillar 43 can be interpreted as counting to 364 (see Figure
2). The 365th day, which completes the solar year, is the special
day “written” on the pillar symbolised by the disk symbol, as predicted by ST17a.
Figure 2 shows this to be a very natural interpretation of this design. In
other words, it appears that Pillar 43 employs a very clever method to ensure
its message is not misunderstood. That is, it uses constants of nature (the
lunar and solar cycles) to tell us that the scene on the pillar should be
interpreted as a special day, i.e. it is a date.
Figure 2. The proposed solar calendar on Pillar 43,
Enclosure D at Göbekli Tepe. The 365th day in the count is taken to
be the summer solstice, symbolised by the disk. This scene can therefore be
interpreted as a date using precession.
In science, prediction confirmation like this is usually
seen as a very powerful signal that a hypothesis is likely to be correct.
Moreover, science relies on the basic principle of parsimony, also known as
“explaining power” or Occam’s razor (McFadden, 2023). Since Sweatman and
colleagues’ hypothesis can account for nearly every detail on this broad side
of Pillar 43 using only a very simple idea with minimal additional data as input (since the Greek constellations are already defined), it should be seen as an excellent explanation
for this very complex system of symbols.
Specifically, ST17a and Sweatman (2024) together explain; i)
the specific choice, position and posture of nearly every animal symbol on the
pillar in terms of pre-cursors to the Greek constellations, ii) the meaning and
purpose of the V-symbols and small box symbols on the main part of the pillar
in terms of a solar calendar, iii) the meaning and link between circular and
semi-circular geometric symbols on the pillar in terms of a date written using
precession, and iv) the meaning of the headless man carved at the bottom of the
pillar and the purpose and importance of the pillar in terms of a memorial to a
pivotal moment in history. Furthermore, this explanation allows interpretation
of other pillars in the same enclosure and at neighbouring sites and helps to explain
the motivation for construction of anomalous sites like Göbekli Tepe.
(Sweatman, 2024)
For comparison, Notroff et al. (2017) suggest only that the
scene depicts excarnation of the headless man at the bottom of the pillar by vultures
and that the semi-circles at the top of pillar 43 may represent the roofs of
the three other large sub-circular enclosures (A, B and C) excavated so far.
Deitrich (2016) further comments that the circle above the bird-of-prey’s wing
might symbolise the head of the man below, although its role as the sun is not
ruled out, and that the other animals next to the semi-circles at the top of
the pillar may represent emblems of specific groups (see Figure 1).
While this is clearly a possibility, it explains nothing
about the specific choice of any animal symbol (other than the bird-of-prey)
nor the specific pose, shape or position of any animal symbol, or any other
symbol on the pillar. Nor does it allow any other pillar to be decoded.
Moreover, the circle is a plain circle without any features to indicate it
might be a decapitated head, which would be surprising given the level of
artistry on display, and a similar circle is seen next to a crescent symbol on
Pillar 18, which indicates they probably represent the sun and moon
respectively. Nor does Notroff et al.’s (2017) hypothesis explain the
importance of Pillar 43 or the sudden emergence of more advanced art, symbolism
and architecture at Göbekli Tepe at this time. And finally, their explanation
involves two concepts that are apparently unrelated, namely excarnation and the
roofs of other enclosures. The astronomical interpretation, on the other hand,
is more coherent.
Therefore, according to the basic principles of the
scientific method, Notroff et al.’s (2017) explanation should be considered highly
speculative, especially when compared with ST17a’s astronomical explanation.
Figure 3. Göbekli Tepe and other local archaeological sites
around the Harran Plain in southern Turkey (from Ayaz (2023)).
Despite the above evidence and arguments that strongly
support ST17a’s hypothesis, there were some flaws in their probabilistic method
that deserve to be corrected. Moreover, Notroff et al.’s (2017) comments cast
some doubt on those original claims. Even though the recent discovery of the
solar calendar (Sweatman, 2024) should mostly dispel those doubts, it still
remains a worthwhile exercise to correct the probabilistic calculation in ST17a.
This is the motivation for this work.
To achieve this aim, we should first introduce Göbekli Tepe
and Pillar 43 in more detail and discuss the origin of the Greek constellations
along with the status of the Younger Dryas impact. Then the probabilistic
method of ST17a can be described along with our update which forms the focus of
this work. The reader is recommended to read Sweatman (2024) for further
details about Göbekli Tepe and its astronomical interpretation first.
2.
Göbekli Tepe and Pillar 43
Göbekli Tepe is located in northern Mesopotamia along with
many other newly discovered Taş Tepeler sites that share some
of its architectural features and symbolism (see Figure 3). These sites appear
to have developed within the Younger Dryas (Epipalaeolithic) and pre-pottery
Neolithic periods (Schmidt, 2000, 2011; Karul, 2021; Kinzel and Clare, 2020).
Reasonably common features are T-shaped megalithic pillars with carved animal
symbols embedded within the walls of large stone enclosures.
Excavations at Göbekli Tepe remain quite limited to around
10% of the site with only a few radiocarbon dates reported so far, the earliest
so far being 9530 ± 200 BCE (Dietrich et al., 2013). This date corresponds to
some charcoal in the mortar of a section of the wall of enclosure D near Pillar
43 (see Figure 4). However, this section of the wall is not the oldest. Kinzel
and Clare (2020) show that a southern section of Enclosure D is even older. Therefore,
neither the age of enclosure D nor Pillar 43 or even Göbekli Tepe itself is
known with much confidence.
Dietrich et al. (2012) suggest the relatively sudden
development in architecture and symbolism displayed by Göbekli Tepe is a key indicator
of the development of civilisation in the Fertile Crescent. In addition, Cauvin
(2000) suggests the rapid change in the prominence of symbolism in this region,
exemplified by Göbekli Tepe, was driven by a change in cultic or religious
belief. Other than ST17a's astronomical hypothesis, suggestions for this
change in belief system include a strengthened interest in ancestor worship and/or
a skull cult (Hodder and Meskel, 2011; Gresky et al., 2017; Kinzel and Clare,
2020), or the dead more generally (Peters and Schmidt, 2004; Dietrich et al.,
2015). These suggestions are not obviously inconsistent with its astronomical
interpretation which relates to the Younger Dryas impact.
A common interpretation is that the symbolism at these sites
indicates shamanism (e.g. Benz and Bauer, 2015; Dietrich, 2023). However, it is
well known that shamanism is often associated with astronomy (for example, see
Krupp, 1999). Moreover, an interest in astronomy and especially the solstices
and equinoxes is expected among ‘more complex’ Palaeolithic hunter-gatherer
groups (Hayden and Villeneuve, 2011). Given the obvious astronomical symbols on
Göbekli Tepe’s pillars, including likely sun and moon symbols on Pillar 18 (see
Sweatman, 2024), a potential Scorpius symbol near a disk symbol on Pillar 43
(see Figure 1), and a common motif for the Pleiades in terms of seven small
birds on the base of Pillar 18 (see Sweatman, 2024), an astronomical
interpretation would appear to be fruitful.
Moore et al. (2023) suggest that developments in agriculture
also occurred at about the same time in the Levant as these developments in
symbolism and monumentality at Taş Tepeler sites. But the emergence of
domestic forms of either plant or animal is not yet apparent at sites like Göbekli
Tepe. Therefore, there remains some debate about the primary driver for
civilisation in the Fertile Crescent; monumentality and symbolism resulting
from a change in mythical beliefs vs agriculture. Possibly, it was their
combination that was crucial (Sweatman, 2019, 2024). Indeed, both developments
might have been triggered by the Younger Dryas impact.
The main subject of this work, Pillar 43, is embedded in the
northwest side of enclosure D at Göbekli Tepe. Regarding the symbols on Pillar
43, first note the circular disk symbol at the visual centre of the pillar. Surrounding
this disk are carved several animals in various poses (see Figure 1), including
a scorpion. At the bottom of Pillar 43 we find what appears to be a headless
man, probably indicating death. The disk symbol rests just above the
outstretched wing of a bird-of-prey, probably an eagle or vulture. If the disk
represents the sun and the animal symbols represent constellations, then the
head and wings of this bird symbol probably represent a constellation very
close to the path of the sun.
Figure 4. Plan of Enclosures A - D, the four main
sub-circular enclosures excavated so far at Göbekli Tepe.
Given the apparent continuity in the Master-of-animals
symbol throughout the Neolithic period until Classical Greece (Sweatman, 2024),
and the general view that similar animal symbols on Bronze Age artifacts are
likely related to the Greek constellations (Rogers, 1998a; 1998b), it is
possible that at least some of the animal symbols on Pillar 43 are also related
to Greek constellations. Moreover, if these animal symbols represent
constellations, with the disk symbol representing the sun, then the scene on
Pillar 43 might represent a date using the position of the solsticial or
equinoctial sun and precession of the equinoxes. This idea, using the winter
solstice to define a date, was first described by Burley (2013), and further
developed by ST17a using the summer solstice instead. Using Stellarium, ST17a
derived a date of 10,950 ± 200 BCE which is close to the suggested age of the
Younger Dryas impact. This date can therefore explain the small, headless man
symbol at the bottom of the pillar, and the pillar is interpreted as a memorial
to possibly the most catastrophic event of at least the last 20,000 years. This
might also help to explain the anomalous appearance of Göbekli Tepe and other Taş Tepeler
sites at this time (Sweatman, 2019,2024).
This idea is given further weight by the three animal
symbols in the top panel of Pillar 43 adjacent to semi-circular symbols (see
Figure 5). ST17a argue that the semi-circular symbols likely represent sunsets
with their adjacent animal symbols representing the three other cardinal
constellations. This possibility of a pre-historic system of “world ages” using
the four cardinal constellations and precession was developed by Gurshtein
(2005). However, Pillar 43 appears to display an even more advanced idea, since
it appears to show the position of the sun relative to a constellation on one
of these cardinal days, which allows a more accurate date to be written than
simply a world age.
Gurshtein’s (2005) prediction was based on the importance of
the development of a calendar to support Neolithic farmers. But his arguments
about the importance of observing the solstices and equinoxes should also apply
to hunter-gatherers, since all their resources are also seasonal. It should not
be surprising, therefore, to find a system of zodiacal dating existed already
in the early Neolithic period.
Figure 5. The upper panel of Pillar 43 that displays three
small animal symbols next to three handbag-like ‘sunset’ symbols, compared with
the expected constellations: Pisces (left), Gemini (middle) and Virgo (right). Photo
courtesy of Alistair Coombs.
Origin of the Greek constellations
Many suggestions have been made regarding the origin of the
Greek constellations. For example, Rogers (1998a, 1998b) considers many late
Neolithic and Bronze age animal symbols in lower Mesopotamia, including those
associated with the Master-of-Animals symbol mentioned earlier, to be likely
precursors to some of the Greek constellations. Others also indicate
substantial knowledge of them in Mesopotamia in the 2nd, 3rd
or 4th millennium BCE (Roy, 1984; Schaefer, 2004; Schaefer, 2007).
However, these are all ‘latest dates’, meaning the origin of many of these
constellations could pre-date these dates.
As there are no surviving written sources that clearly claim
the invention of any constellation related to the Greek set, independent of any
prior constellation in the same position, any suggestion about their origin is conjecture
(Kechagias and Hoffman, 2022). Therefore, while there are many similarities
between the constellations in Ptolemy’s Almagest (2nd Century CE),
which are generally considered to describe a complete set of Greek
constellations, and the Babylonian zodiacal constellations in the Mul.Apin (early 1st
or late 2nd millennium BCE), it is not known for certain that the
Greeks obtained any of their zodiac directly from Babylon. Both cultures could have
obtained many of them from an earlier common source nearby. Since both Greece
and lower Mesopotamia both border Anatolia, with which there was undoubtedly
much trade and exchange of people and ideas, it is possible that at least some
of the Greek zodiacal constellations were obtained from there. This is also where
Göbekli Tepe is situated.
Regarding the non-zodiacal Greek constellations, the general
view is their origin is largely unknown, although some of them are mentioned by
Greek poets of the Archaic era, which indicates they likely already existed in
the 2nd millennium BCE.
It is important to note that this work does not investigate
when a complete set of Greek constellations, as described by Greek sources like
Ptolemy or Aratus, was first defined. We investigate only if a subset of the
Greek constellations might have pre-cursors at Göbekli Tepe.
The Younger Dryas impact
There is abundant evidence for the Younger Dryas impact
(Sweatman, 2021; Powell, 2022). Despite Holliday et al.’s (2023) recent
criticism, Sweatman et al. (2024a,2024b) argue that the impact hypothesis
remains the best explanation for the evidence observed and that nearly all of
Holliday et al.’s (2023) arguments are either irrelevant or spurious. Given the
existence of the Taurid meteor stream, an event like the Younger Dryas impact
is thought to be reasonably probable (Napier, 2010, 2013).
It is also clear that Abu Hureyra, one of the world’s first
known settlements around 150 km south of Göbekli Tepe, was destroyed by a
cosmic impact on a date consistent with the YD impact event (Moore et al.,
2000, 2023). This is practically confirmed by the existence of mineral grains that
show clear signs of melting at temperatures in excess of 2000 oC
along with excess nanodiamonds, platinum and impact-like microspherules within
the YD impact-age debris layer at the site. All of these geochemical signatures
are associated with extra-terrestrial impact. Moreover, anomalously thick
layers of charcoal with YD impact age radiocarbon dates have been found in
several lakes in central Anatolia (Turner, 2010).
Nevertheless, ST17a’s astronomical interpretation does not
live or die by the veracity of the Younger Dryas impact. This catastrophic
event is chosen by them for the date written on Pillar 43 partly because it
helps to explain the importance and purpose of Pillar 43 as well as the
unexpected development of Taş Tepeler sites like Göbekli Tepe
after the Younger Dryas period. The other reason for choosing this
event is that there is other evidence that points in this direction, especially
Pillar 33 in Enclosure D (Sweatman, 2024). But even if the Younger Dryas impact
did not occur, this would not undermine the essential aspect of the
astronomical interpretation of Pillar 43, which is that it memorialises a date
using constellations similar to some of the Greek ones and precession.
3.
The probabilistic hypothesis test of Sweatman
and Tsikritsis
ST17a performed a probabilistic test of their hypothesis as
follows. Assuming the null hypothesis, which is that the animal symbols do not
represent constellations, they estimated the probability that a set of animal
symbols can be selected at random from those seen at Göbekli Tepe and placed on
Pillar 43 and yet be mistaken for Greek constellations representing a date
using precession of the equinoxes with as strong a correlation, or better, as
those that actually appear on Pillar 43. The probability of obtaining this
level of correlation by pure chance, they assumed, is a reasonable unbiased estimate
for the probability the animal symbols do not represent constellations.
To better understand this probabilistic method, consider
some simpler problems first that elaborate the key ideas.
i)
Suppose a pill is given to a random group of 50
people while a placebo is given to another random group of 50 people. If all
the people that took the pill are dead by the following day, while all of those
that took the placebo are alive and well, it is fair to assume the tablet is a deadly
poison. We can conclude that taking the pill is almost certainly deadly solely
on the basis of the statistics. No prior knowledge of the mechanism leading to
death is needed. Provided the experiment is performed properly and there is no
other prior knowledge that might influence the result, this conclusion is
robust. Would you take one of these poison pills? This is an example of the
scientific method in action and is the essential basis of drug testing in
modern medicine. But the basic principle of statistical hypothesis testing
applies to all science, including archaeology.
ii)
Now consider a different situation consisting of
a room where 100 people are all stood on caricatures painted on the floor that
look just like them. It is safe to assume this situation did not occur by pure chance
because the probability of it happening by chance is tiny. However, prior
knowledge might influence our estimate of this chance. This highlights the
principle of Bayesian statistics which is also important in science and will be
discussed later.
iii)
Now suppose the same situation as ii), but
instead it is not so clear that each person is stood on a caricature that looks
the most like them. Nevertheless, the likeness between the caricatures
and people can still be ranked. In this case, it is still possible to reach a
conclusion with confidence about whether the situation occurred by chance or
design using an estimate of the correlation. Again, this probability estimate
can be influenced by prior knowledge through Bayesian statistics.
In test ii) above we used the phrase “look just like them”
to define the confidence in the match between each person and the corresponding
caricature. This assumes a normal level of human visual perception to
distinguish faces with extremely high confidence. Test iii) above, on the other
hand, assumes lower confidence. In this case, perhaps all the people look very
similar or perhaps the caricatures are not so well drawn. In this case, it is
still possible to arrive at a robust ranking by performing a separate experiment
where each person-caricature combination is ranked by, say, 100 volunteers. The
ranked list is then taken to be the average view of this population and will
include an error estimate.
Test iii) above is identical to the probabilistic test
devised by ST17a for Pillar 43. Since they made no prior assumptions about
whether astronomical symbolism could appear at Göbekli Tepe, their hypothesis
test is unbiased in this respect. In other words, it makes no use of Bayesian
statistics.
In more detail, they took a combinatorial approach where any
animal symbol associated with a constellation on Pillar 43 can be replaced with
any of the 12 main animal symbols found at Göbekli Tepe with uniform
probability. As there are 8 animal symbols linked with constellations on Pillar
43, and around 12 known animal symbols on the broad sides of Pillars at Göbekli Tepe (by 2017) to choose from, there are a
total of 128 = 430 million distinct and equally likely combinations
of animal symbols on Pillar 43, if we allow the same symbol to occur multiple
times. Let’s call this number, the number of allowed combinations, x. Considering
that some pillars at Göbekli Tepe display the same animal symbol more than
once, this seems to be a fair way of counting x.
ST17a then estimated how many of these combinations were as
good as the one that already appears on the pillar for representing a date. To
answer this, they first ranked each animal symbol against each constellation
associated with that position on Pillar 43. In this way, a score, Z, can
be associated with each distinct combination by summing the ranks for each
animal symbol in that position. By counting how many other combinations, y,
there are with the same or better score as the animal symbols that actually
appear on the pillar, an estimate of the probability that the overall pattern
match on Pillar 43 is a coincidence is obtained as y/x. In
principle, this is a fair and scientific approach provided the ranked lists for
each animal symbol are obtained objectively, for example by performing an
experiment involving lots of volunteers as discussed previously.
However, ST17a instead created their ranked lists by their
own eye, resulting in a potentially subjective result. Note, however, that
visual inspection and judgement of artefacts is commonplace in archaeology.
Pieces of pottery, bone, stone, and many other materials are routinely
inspected visually by archaeologists. Often, this process is deemed sufficient
to confidently decide to categorize an object, provided the context of the find
is also respected.
Ultimately, ST17a obtained an estimate of 1 in 100 million.
This means that, according to their view of the pattern matches and ignoring
any other biases or information, the correlation almost certainly did not occur
by pure chance. They therefore concluded the arrangement of animal symbols on
Pillar 43 was not a fluke, and that at least some of the animal symbols almost
certainly are related in some way to the Greek constellations.
However, there are a few problems with their probabilistic
estimate. First, the bird-of-prey was used to locate and orient the scene in
the sky and it was also included in
their probability estimate. This generates a bias, which should be avoided. Second,
their estimate for the number of combinations as good as or better than the one
that actually appears on Pillar 43, y, was incorrectly counted since it did
not fully account for the multiplicity of possible outcomes. Taking both these errors
into account, their result should be adjusted to a probability of 1 in 2.2
million, which is still a highly significant result.
In later work, Sweatman and Coombs (2019) took account of
another degree-of-freedom on Pillar 43 not considered by ST17a. That
is, they provided an estimate for the probability of the placement, i.e. the
precise location, of the animal symbols around the scorpion on the main panel.
Ultimately, a probability estimate of 1 in 7 was obtained for this positional
correlation which reduces the probability of the overall pattern match to around
1 in 15 million.
In summary, Sweatman and Tsikritsis’ (2017a) probabilistic
method for evaluating Pillar 43 suffers from several problems, as follows;
1.
The ranked lists that compare animal symbols
with constellations were generated by their own eyes, which potentially
introduces some subjectivity and bias.
2.
y was counted erroneously.
3.
The bird-of-prey symbol was used to pin the
scene in the sky and included in their probability estimate, which creates a
bias.
4.
No prior knowledge about the possibility of
astronomical symbolism being present at Göbekli Tepe, which can bias the
outcome via the Bayes’ theorem, was taken into account.
Our aim here is to address all these issues.
4.
An alternative probabilistic test for Pillar 43
ST17a compared each animal symbol found at Göbekli Tepe with
the expected Greek constellation according to their hypothesis, which generates
128 = 430 million distinct combinations since there were 12
well-defined animal symbols on the broad sides of Göbekli Tepe’s pillars
uncovered by 2017 and 8 constellations to compare with. Here, we take the
opposite approach which compares each Greek constellation with the specific
animal symbols seen on Pillar 43. Avoiding the bias of item 3 above, this
generates 487 distinct combinations since there are 48 Greek constellations.
However, not all these constellations were visible from
Göbekli Tepe at that time because some are too far south. If we limit ourselves
to only the visible constellations at the time Pillar 43 is thought to have
been carved, ~ 9500 BCE, there are 447 = 319 billion distinct
combinations. The southerly constellations we omit are; Canis Major, Lepus,
Eridanus and the constellations that form Argo Navis.
If the animal symbols on Pillar 43 represent constellations,
then the people who carved Pillar 43 would have had a view of which stars
formed recognisable groups and how they were connected by imaginary lines or
patterns. Unfortunately, we don’t have any direct knowledge of this information
- we only have the animal symbols on Pillar 43. Fortunately, we have a better
understanding of the Greek constellations because they are listed in detail in
Ptolemy’s Almagest (Toomer, 1984). This set was written in Alexandria in Egypt
in ~ 150 CE. Information contained in the Almagest is thought to be based mainly
on information provided by Hipparchus, 2nd Century BCE, although
there are no surviving copies of that work.
The star catalogue in the Almagest is provided in terms of star
lists for each constellation along with comments about how each star relates to
a position in a constellation symbol. Unfortunately, neither constellation
symbols nor stick figures are provided in the Almagest as a guide. Therefore,
the Modern constellation set of stick figures in Stellarium used by ST17a is a
modern invention, constructed in a similar way to a dot-to-dot puzzle based mainly
on information in the Almagest, although other historical sources are also
used.
We can presume that Ptolemy considered the information he
provided in the Almagest to be sufficient to reproduce the patterns the Greeks
saw in the sky with reasonable accuracy, otherwise he would have provided more
information. As a good example of this principle, consider Pisces whose points
form two roughly straight lines along two sides of a triangle, and whose Greek
symbol consists of two fish lying along these two sides tied together by their
tails. In his Almagest, Ptolemy provides notes that describe how each star
corresponds to each part of the Pisces constellation symbol. Anyone solving
this puzzle given the points and Ptolemy’s instructions will form very similar stick
figure constellations. Therefore, the reconstructed constellations in
Stellarium are a valid reference.
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to question use of Stellarium’s
Modern constellation set, in particular, rather than another set. In fact, ST17a
used the default setting of Stellarium. As there is no bias in this choice their
result is unbiased. Regarding the lack of complete fidelity or accuracy of this
constellation set with the Almagest, this also does not matter. All that
matters is that ST17a chose a constellation set without bias. If there is a
strong correlation between Pillar 43 and this constellation set, then it
supports their hypothesis. How that correlation occurred is a separate question,
but clearly, there are only four logical possibilities:
Possibility 1: A direct line
of cultural influence between a pattern on Pillar 43 and one in Stellarium
has
been transmitted via the Almagest, albeit with gradual changes in the
constellation definition over time.
Possibility 2: A direct line of cultural influence
between a pattern on Pillar 43 and one in Stellarium, albeit with gradual
changes in the constellation definition over time, but without involving the
Almagest.
Possibility 3: No direct cultural influence between a
pattern on Pillar 43 and one in Stellarium. Instead, the artists who
constructed Pillar 43 and Stellarium’s stick figures saw similar patterns in
the sky.
Possibility 4: No influence between a pattern on
Pillar 43 and Stellarium. Any correlation is pure coincidence.
All four options are possible simultaneously, since they can
apply to different patterns on Pillar 43. However, if the overall correlation
between Pillar 43 and Stellarium’s patterns is very strong then it implies that
options 1 – 3 are more likely.
We therefore also use the Modern constellation set of stick
figures in Stellarium as our reference. However, other options are available.
For example, the Greek (Almagest) set of stick figures in Stellarium claims to
be a more faithful interpretation of the Greek constellation patterns as defined
by the Almagest. While this might be thought to be a better choice than the Modern
set, there are problems with this choice too in that additional stars not
listed in the Almagest have been used for some constellations to define a more ‘pleasing’
set of lines with respect to an imagined symbol. For example, extra stars and
lines have been added to define the heads of the Gemini twins. Similar problems
occur with other sets.
Ultimately, there is no perfect choice of reference set of
constellations (points and lines) in Stellarium, or any other
archaeoastronomical software for that matter. But since we are not overly concerned
here with how the correlation between Pillar 43 and Stellarium’s stick figures
occurred, the Modern set of constellations is a reasonable and unbiased choice.
Nevertheless, we comment on the dependency of our analysis on the choice of
constellation sets just mentioned later in Section 6.
Another problem we encounter in this process is the
comparison between a 2d symbol carved on Pillar 43 and a stick figure drawn in
Stellarium. One objection to this comparison is that since the lines are a
modern invention, we should instead compare the 2d patterns on Pillar 43 with
just the set of dots defined by the Almagest, ignoring any invented lines. The
problem with this approach is that the dots have dimension zero, so any such
comparison is meaningless. Moreover, we are not allowed to invent our own lines
between the dots since this would introduce a bias. Additionally, the number of
ways that a set of lines can be drawn between a set of dots grows exponentially
with the number of dots. Choosing one set of lines arbitrarily is both
statistically meaningless and potentially biased.
One might also object to the use of stick figures in
Stellarium rather than their accompanying constellation symbols. However, there
are at least two severe problems with using the latter. First, the Greek
constellation symbols often involve non-animal or human symbols, like the Scales
for Libra and a human female for Virgo. At Göbekli Tepe, on the other hand, all
the symbols are non-human animals. Therefore, any such comparison will
automatically encounter insurmountable problems. Secondly, constellation symbols
can have superfluous details that are not based on any corresponding asterism,
and it would be easy to be distracted by these extraneous details. It is far
better, in our view, to consider only the stick patterns in Stellarium which
define a single choice for joining the set of dots corresponding to the
essential shape of a constellation without any superfluous details.
Ultimately, we agree that the approach adopted by ST17a,
which is to compare the 2d patterns on Pillar 43 with the 2d stick patterns
defined in Stellarium, is the only viable and unbiased way forward. The Modern
constellation set is as good as any in that it is an unbiased choice that is
based mainly on historical accounts (mostly the Almagest) of constellations
that might have an ancient origin in the Fertile Crescent. We are not overly
concerned about fidelity with the Almagest, in particular, because our analysis
should also allow for possibilities 2 and 3 above. In other words, we are
concerned only with the possibility that the animal symbols on the broad face
of Pillar 43 are constellation symbols. Their correspondence specifically with
the Almagest is not our main concern.
4.1 The
correlation
ST17a’s hypothesis is that the main scene on Pillar 43
corresponds to a set of constellations on the path of the ecliptic on one of
the four cardinal dates of the year. Using Stellarium, the only constellation
on the ecliptic in the Modern constellation set that resembles the bird-of-prey
on Pillar 43 is the teapot asterism of Sagittarius (see Figure 1). This choice,
bird-of-prey ≈ Sagittarius, orients and pins the scene to a region of
the sky around Sagittarius at sunset. The other animal symbols surrounding this
bird can therefore be used to test this hypothesis. Moreover, ST17a propose
that the three animal symbols next to the three semi-circles at the top of the
pillar are the three other cardinal constellation symbols, in line with
Gurshtein’s (2005) hypothesis. These can therefore also be used to test the
hypothesis.
We therefore have up to eight animal symbols remaining (not
counting the bird-of-prey) on Pillar 43 that can be used to test this
hypothesis. We go through each animal symbol in turn next.
4.1.1 Scorpion
4.1.2 Canid
Directly left of the
scorpion on Pillar 43 is a canid (see Figure 1). It appears to be jumping up
with its snout and paws raised to the right. There are two canids remaining in
our constellation set, Lupus and Canis Minor. Of these two, Lupus has exactly
the pose depicted on the pillar and is also the constellation expected in this
position. Therefore, we can also rank Lupus 1st out of 44. Again, we
consider this an objective result. Indeed, due to the very precise
correspondence between what we see on the pillar and what we expect to find if
the hypothesis is correct, this is a very strong correlation by itself that we
consider is far more significant than only 1 out of 44.
4.1.3 Bird with snake
Next, consider the tall
bird with snake to the upper-right of the scorpion which is in a position
similar to Ophiuchus and Serpens (see Figure 1). The bird appears to be a water
wader, and the overall shape of this animal symbol is similar to a vertically
oriented oval. Considering the visible Greek constellations, only a few of them
correspond to either tall birds or snakes; Aquila, Cygnus, Draco, Hydra and
Serpens. However, Aquila and Cygnus are normally pictured as flying, not
standing. Since this very different pose corresponds to a very different symbol
shape, and since only a partial symbolic match is obtained, we should also
consider other constellations with a similar overall shape to this symbol on
Pillar 43; Ara, Auriga, Corvus, Equuleus, Libra, and Ophiuchus (see Figure 6).
Since none of these constellations is obviously a closer match than Ophiuchus in
terms of its overall shape, we should probably rank Ophiuchus + Serpens 1st
as they are the only constellations to at least partially satisfy both shape
and species criteria. Clearly, there is some uncertainty in this ranking. It is
not as good a match as the previous cases.
Figure 6. The tall
bird with snake symbol on Pillar 43 (left) compared with similar constellations
from Stellarium’s Modern set (in clockwise order from top-left): Ara, Auriga,
Corvus, Ophiuchus, Libra and Equuleus.
Nevertheless, there
is some further evidence that justifies this ranking. For example, consider the
stone vessel (see Figure 7) recovered from Kortik Tepe, an archaeological site
around 200 km to the northeast of Göbekli Tepe in the Tigris river basin
system. Earliest radiocarbon dates for Kortik Tepe (10,425 - 9885 BCE at 95.5%
confidence) place it within the Younger Dryas period (Coşkun et al. 2012). While this would
apparently make Kortik Tepe older than Göbekli Tepe, this is quite uncertain
because Göbekli Tepe’s age is not yet known with certainty. Benz and Bauer
(2015) also attribute Kortik Tepe’s symbolism to shamanism, and they remark on
the similarity of symbols on this stone vessel, and more generally at Kortik
Tepe, to those on Pillar 43 at Göbekli Tepe. Especially, in Figure 7 we see a
disk symbol above the outstretched wings of what appears to be a bird-of-prey,
although this image is reversed left-to-right compared with Pillar 43. To the
right of this bird-of-prey we also see a tall bird-man and a snake. The
similarity of this scene with the one on Pillar 43 suggests the ideas
represented by Pillar 43 were well-known within the Younger Dryas period and
that the tall bird with snake symbol on Pillar 43 could also be interpreted as
a bird-man and snake. Symbolically, this is a much closer match to Ophiuchus +
Serpens.
Also consider several
plaques found at the 5th millennium BCE site of Tepe Giyan in Iran
in Figure 8 (Dubhrós,
J., 2018). On the left we see a Master-of-animals holding two snakes. In the
middle and on the right a similar “bird-man” figure appears to be wrestling a
serpent with stars in the background, which is very similar to the Greek view
of Ophiuchus and Serpens. Note that Ophiuchus is the autumn equinox
constellation from 4100 – 3600 BCE.
Possibly, then, the Ophiuchus + Serpens pair is descended from a very
ancient myth involving a tall bird or bird-man wrestling a snake. Therefore,
even though we do not have a perfect symbolic match between the tall bird +
snake symbol on Pillar 43 and Ophiuchus + Serpens, there is some justification
for ranking it 1st out of 44. It does seem that Ophiuchus + Serpens
is a closer match than any other Greek constellation.
Figure 7. Chlorite
vessel recovered from Kortik Tepe, an Epipalaeolithic settlement around 200 kms
from Göbekli Tepe (Benz and Bauer, 2015). At the top-left we see a bird-of-prey
with concentric circles above its out-stretched wing, while on the right we see
a tall bird-man and snake. This scene is very similar to the one on Pillar 43
at Göbekli Tepe, which suggests the bird with snake on Pillar 43 was also
viewed as a bird-man and snake. The bird-man and snake are reminiscent of
Ophiuchus and Serpens. (Image courtesy of Benz and Bauer, 2015)
Figure 8. Stone
plaques from Tepe Giyan, Iran, 5th millennium BCE (image from
Wikipedia, CC-BY-SA 4.0)
4.1.4 Duck/goose
Now consider the
duck/goose at the bottom of Pillar 43 (see Figure 1). The Greek constellation
in this position is Libra (the Scales). Clearly, there is no symbolic match
here. Since only the head and neck of the duck/goose is currently showing on
Pillar 43, we cannot attempt to search for constellations that match the
overall shape of the duck/goose either. Further excavations would help in this regard.
Although, we can imagine that Libra defined in the Modern constellation set
fits the shape of a duck or goose quite well, since we cannot see the whole
shape of the symbol on Pillar 43 we have no basis to rank Libra against this
animal symbol at all. We must therefore exclude it from our analysis until
further excavations are completed.
Figure 9. Minoan Master-of-Animals holding a pair of geese, circa 1700 – 1400 BCE. Libra was the autumn equinox constellation at this time. On Pillar 43 we see a duck or goose in the position expected for Libra. (Image from Wikipedia, CC-BY-2.0)
Historically, in
ancient Babylon, Greece and Rome, this part of the sky has been viewed as
either a separate constellation (Libra, the Scales) or as part of Scorpius (the
claws). Due to incompleteness of the historical record, it is impossible to
know which of these has precedence with any confidence. It is therefore
possible that Libra, or a similar constellation in that region of the sky, was
viewed originally as a water bird and was later viewed as the Scales or the
claws of Scorpius. To support this view, consider the Minoan
Mistress-of-Animals (1700 – 1400 BCE) holding a pair of geese in Figure 9. Libra
was the autumn equinox constellation from around 2200 – 1000 BCE.
4.1.5 Bending bird
Next, consider the
tall bending bird at the top left of Pillar 43 (see Figure 5). Pisces is expected
in this position, which according to the Greek tradition is represented by two
fish tied together by their tails. We therefore have a symbolic mismatch.
Moreover, while some of the Greek constellation symbols are of birds (Aquila,
Cygnus and Corvus), none of them are presented in this bending pose. Typically,
Aquila and Cygnus are presented as flying while Corvus is presented as a
standing bird. Corvus is also short-legged and the Corvus stick figure in
Stellarium has a very different shape to the pattern on Pillar 43. However,
Pisces, which is the expected constellation, is a near-perfect match to the
bending bird in terms of overall shape (see Figure 5) and is clearly the best
of all the Greek constellations in terms of this criterion. We therefore
suggest that Pisces is ranked no worse than 4th out of 44.
4.1.6 Down-crawling quadruped
Next consider the
down-crawling quadruped at the top-right of Pillar 43. It is not clear from Figure
4 to which class of animal this creature belongs. Nevertheless, it is clearly a
quadruped with its large, rounded body perpendicular to the viewpoint and with
legs splayed outwards at the corners.
Note that evidence
from Çatalhöyuk suggests it might represent a bear (Sweatman and Coombs, 2019).
Çatalhöyuk is an early Neolithic town in Central Anatolia, circa 7,100 – 6,000
BCE, near the Konya plain. Excavations over many decades there have revealed
four types of large zoomorphic wall installations within rooms from its lower
levels. Other zoomorphic wall inclusions are also found at Çatalhöyuk, but
according to Melaart (1967) and Hodder (2011) there are only four types of
large zoomorphic wall installation, or shrine, consisting of layer upon layer
of plaster and paint. This is consistent with Gurshtein’s hypothesis of using
the four cardinal constellations to write a “world age”.
The ursine symbols
from Çatalhöyuk and Göbekli Tepe are compared in Figure 10. Typical Çatalhöyuk
bear shrine symbols display a circular disk on their abdomens and are thought
by Sweatman and Coombs (2019) to signify the summer solstice constellation at
the time, similar to Virgo. Four millennia earlier, at the time of the Younger
Dryas impact, Virgo is the spring equinox constellation. We therefore expect to
see this symbol at the top-right of Pillar 43, which is confirmed in Figure 5.
This prediction confirmation is highly unlikely to occur by pure chance.
Figure 10. a) Down-crawling
quadruped from the top-right of Pillar 43; b) stone carving in Sanliurfa museum
recovered from Göbekli Tepe; c) bear-like wall installation from Çatalhöyuk, (image
courtesy of James Melaart); d) bear seal stamp recovered from Çatalhöyuk (image
courtesy of Ian Hodder). The expected constellation corresponding to these
symbols is Virgo, which is also a vertically oriented quadruped with limbs
splayed outwards.
It is clear that the
symbol at top-right of Pillar 43 is a quadruped viewed perpendicular to its
torso, crawling downward with its legs splayed at each corner. This pose is
similar to that of Virgo, although the down-crawling creature here is clearly
not a human female, the Greek symbol for Virgo.
As we have a species
mismatch, we should consider which other constellation stick figures can also
be viewed as vertically oriented quadrupeds with limbs splayed at the corners
when viewed at sunset at 9500 BCE. In fact, there are several; Lupus, Orion, Hercules,
Taurus, and Ursa Major (see Figure 11). Therefore, we suggest Virgo is ranked
no worse than 6th out of 44. Indeed, considering the constellations
in Figure 11, Virgo is clearly one of the better examples.
4.1.7 Horizontal quadruped
Next, consider the
small animal symbol in the middle of the top panel of Pillar 43 (see Figure 5).
It’s not clear which species is depicted, making an immediate match impossible.
Suggestions include a charging ibex facing left, or a crouching feline or
crocodile facing right. Whatever animal species is depicted, it is clear that
it is a standing quadruped viewed from the side with either long horns or a
long tail over its back. Gemini is expected in this position on the pillar
according to ST17a. Although we know Gemini as a pair of twins with arms linked,
we must consider how this constellation could be viewed as a non-human animal.
Most obviously, we can expect Gemini to correspond to a quadruped viewed from
the side with legs below. This is exactly what is observed on Pillar 43.
However, several
other Greek constellations correspond to quadrupeds viewed from the side with
legs below; Lupus, Capricornus, Aquarius and Cancer (see Figure 12). Therefore,
Gemini should be ranked no worse than 5th out of 44.
4.1.8 Squat bird-like figure
Finally, let’s
consider the squat bird-like figure on the main panel of Pillar 43 to the right
of the scorpion (see Figure 1). There is no corresponding Greek constellation
in the sky in this position. We therefore propose that this symbol is a
constellation that did not survive the passage of time. It has no influence on
our analysis.
4.1.9 Summary
If we add the above
scores together, we obtain a total that is no worse than 18.
4.2 Analysis
We estimate an unbiased probability of p x 2/7
that the correlation of Pillar 43 with the Modern constellation set of
Stellarium occurred by pure chance, where p is the probability of rolling
a score of 18 or less on 6 x 44-sided dice. The pre-factor of 2 in this
calculation arises because of the symmetry of the top row of Pillar 43, i.e.
the order of the animal symbols in the top panel could be reversed and yet
still be read as the same zodiacal date. Therefore, the probability of success
must be doubled. Division by 7 reflects the spatial correlation of the animal
symbols on the main panel, discussed above (Sweatman and Coombs, 2019).
Using the Omni
Calculator web resource (Sas, 2025), this probability is around 1 in 1.4
million. This corresponds nearly to a 5-sigma result. In particle physics, a
5-sigma result is normally accepted for discovery of a new particle.
5. Discussion
The above analysis
has addressed issues 1 - 3 listed in Section 3. That is, the unbiased
probability that the correlation between Pillar 43 and the Modern constellations
in Stellarium could occur by chance is estimated to be extremely small (< 1
in 1.4 million). However, prior knowledge of whether astronomical symbolism occurs
at Göbekli Tepe could bias this estimate. Therefore, a discussion of Bayes’
theorem and its implications for this probability estimate are discussed next.
This addresses issue 4 in section 3.
Using Bayes’
theorem, it can be shown that,
A = “the correlation between symbols on
Pillar 43 and “Modern” constellations in Stellarium is better than 1 in 1.4
million”
B = “Pillar 43 expresses a zodiacal date”
Equation
(1) expresses the probability of condition B given condition A (written as
P(B|A)), which is a statement of the hypothesis we would like to test. It shows
that this probability depends on two factors; P(A|~B) and a. The former corresponds to the
correlation measured in Section 4. The latter is a modifier, or bias, which
reflects prior knowledge about this possibility. ST17a used an unbiased estimate,
a
= 1. However, if other evidence points towards an astronomical interpretation
for Pillar 43, then a
<1, while for the opposite case, a > 1.
Therefore,
if additional evidence supports the view that Pillar 43 displays astronomical
symbolism, other than the strength of the observed correlation, then it is more
likely that the astronomical hypothesis is correct. When viewed this way,
equation (1) is consistent with the fundamental scientific principle of
parsimony, a.k.a. Occam’s razor.
Motivated
by Bayes’ theorem, the remainder of this section describes further evidence,
beyond the strong correlation estimated in Section 4, that Göbekli Tepe’s
symbolism is mainly astronomical. In fact, this evidence has already been
presented by Sweatman (2024). His main points are summarized below (see
Sweatman (2024) for details);
1. Shamanism: A consistent view is that Göbekli Tepe’s
symbolism is linked with shamanism (e.g. Dietrich, 2023; Benz and Bauer, 2015).
But it is also known that shamanism is strongly linked with astronomy (Krupp,
1999).
2. Ethnography: Hayden and Villeneuve (2011) show that
relatively modern hunter-gatherer tribes were often interested in astronomy,
especially the solstices and equinoxes, typically for the purpose of arranging
tribal meetings. Moreover, this interest occurred more often for so-called
‘complex’ hunter-gatherer tribes. Göbekli Tepe appears to have been built by a
complex hunter-gather tribe. Later cultures in the region are known to have
strongly astronomically-related religions where animal symbols are used to
represent deities and constellations.
3. The
circular disc: The
front of Pillar 18 in Enclosure D is similar to the Nebra sky-disc which is
generally acknowledged to display astronomical information. Indeed, the
circular disc symbol and crescent symbol on Pillar 18 are common symbols for
the sun and moon, respectively. On Pillar 43 we see a circular disc symbol
surrounded by animal symbols.
4. The
solar calendar:
Pillar 43 appears to display a solar calendar for counting the (365) days of a
solar year. The final day of the count appears to be the date written on the
pillar. We suggest that this design was deliberately used to inform the reader
that the scene on the pillar is a date written using precession.
5. Gurshtein’s
prediction: Gurshtein predicted that four animal symbols would be used by
Neolithic farmers, circa 6000 BCE, to indicate a ‘world age’ using precession.
The symbolism seen on Pillar 43 suggests this knowledge already existed by
11,000 BCE. Çatalhöyuk’s four kinds of zoomorphic wall installation also
satisfy Gurshtein’s prediction, as do many Neolithic and Bronze Age
Master-of-Animals symbols (see point 7 below).
6. Semi-circular
symbols:
The top panel of Pillar 43 shows animal symbols next to sunset-like symbols.
Sweatman (2024) shows that similar symbols observed on 3rd and 4th
millennium BCE artefacts are also consistent with expressing zodiacal dates.
These include, but are not limited to, a 3rd millennium BCE Jiroft stone
weight in the shape of a ‘handbag’ from ancient Iran, the 4th
millennium BCE Uruk Vase from ancient Mesopotamia, and 4th
millennium BCE rock graffiti found in the Theban desert. Indeed, the symbols on
the Gebel Djauti rock graffiti are so similar to those on Pillar 43, it is very
likely that the respective artists knew the same symbolic code. This suggests
that symbolism seen at Göbekli Tepe endured for many millennia.
7. Master/Mistress-of-animals: A likely Master-of-animals symbol has
been found at a nearby Tas Tepeler site, Sayburc, and a Mistress-of animals
symbol was found at Çatalhöyuk, central Turkey, circa 6,500 BCE. Similar symbols found on 5th, 4th
and 3rd millennium BCE artefacts across a wide region further
support the view that some symbolism from the time of Göbekli Tepe endured
until the Bronze Age.
8. Animal
symbols as constellations:
When seen together with semi-circular sunset symbols and
master/mistress-of-animals symbols, animal symbols on intercultural artefacts
are generally recognised as being likely precursors of the Greek constellations
and are often consistent with Gurshtein’s prediction. Thus, a cultural link
between Göbekli Tepe’s animal symbols and the Greek constellations can be made.
9. Snakes on Pillar 33: Bunches of snakes radiate from the
bodies of foxes and tall birds of Pillar 33. This suggests the animal symbols
at Göbekli Tepe don’t represent actual animals. However, Pillar 33 has a
natural astronomical interpretation as a picture of a meteor stream.
10. Palaeolithic
art: A zodiac derived mainly from Göbekli Tepe can be used to analyse European
Palaeolithic cave art. The extremely strong correlation observed between
radiocarbon dates and zodiacal dates for these painted animals (Sweatman and
Coombs, 2019) along with a strong correlation in the direction of these painted
cave entrances towards solstice/equinox sunrises/sunsets (Hayden and
Villeneuve, 2011), suggests a system of zodiacal dating similar to the one at
Göbekli Tepe already existed in Palaeolithic Europe
Our view is that
given this evidence, we should take a << 1. In turn, using the Bayesian
statistical argument expressed by equation (1), the evidence is very strongly
in favour of the astronomical hypothesis.
This methodology and
result is useful because, to our knowledge, it is the only interpretation of
Pillar 43 that is supported by a probabilistic analysis. We recommend that any
other theory for interpretation of Pillar 43 is analysed in a similar way. Our results
would then provide a useful benchmark for comparison. Note that Notroff et
al.’s (2017) suggestion that Pillar 43 symbolises excarnation cannot be
analysed in this way, since it only provides an explanation for a couple of the
symbols on the pillar and no probabilistic case can be created. Their theory is
therefore very speculative. The astronomical interpretation, on the other hand,
provides an efficient explanation for the precise position of nearly all the
symbols on this face of the pillar as well as many other symbols across the Göbekli
Tepe culture and in later neighbouring regions. In particular, it
explains all of the following;
1.
The similarity in the shape of the teapot
asterism of Sagittarius to the head and wings of the bird-of-prey at the centre
of the Pillar (see Figure 1).
2.
The location of a circle just above the wing of
this bird-of-prey as the sun on the summer solstice next to Sagittarius,
generating a date of ~ 10,950 BC using precession (see Figure 1).
3.
The precise location specifically of a scorpion
just below this bird-or-prey as a precursor to Scorpius (see Figure 1).
4.
The precise location and pose specifically of a
canid to the left of the scorpion as a precursor to Lupus (see Figure 1).
5.
The location of a symbol involving a snake to
the upper right of the scorpion in terms of precursors to Ophiuchus and Serpens
(see Figures 1, 6 and 7).
6.
The existence of three semi-circles next to
three more animal symbols at the top of Pillar 43 in terms of the three sunsets
of the three other cardinal constellations, consistent with Gurshtein’s (2005)
“world age” hypothesis (see Figure 5).
7.
The precise shape of the bending bird next to
the left-most semi-circle in terms of a precursor to Pisces (see Figure 5).
8.
The existence of a quadruped viewed from the
side next to the middle semi-circle in terms of a precursor to Gemini, which in
terms of an animal can naturally be interpreted in this way (see Figure 5).
9.
The existence of a vertically oriented splayed
quadruped next to the right-most semi-circle in terms of a precursor to Virgo
which is also a vertically oriented splayed quadruped (see Figures 5 and 10).
10.
The specific presence of 15 upright V-symbols
and 14 upside-down V-symbols in a single line as counting a lunar month (29 or
30 days). The presence of specifically 11 small boxes just below this as
counting additional lunar months. The presence of precisely 10 more V-symbols
just below the 11 small boxes and just above the circle symbol as counting 10 +
1 = 11 epagominal days. Together, these above symbols can be interpreted as
counting a solar cycle, as follows: (29 + 30)/2 * (1 + 11) + 10 + 1 = 365 (see
Figure 2).
11.
The presence of a headless man at the bottom of
the pillar in terms of the concept of death, i.e. that the date represents a
memorial to a specific catastrophic event that was extremely important in the
lives of the people of Göbekli Tepe and can explain the special significance of
the Pillar (see Figure 1).
12.
The derived date (~ 10,950 BC) is consistent
with the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis which explains why the date was so
important to memorialise.
6.
The Greek (Almagest) constellation set in
Stellarium
It is possible that our use of the Modern constellation set
in Stellarium has resulted in a ‘fluke’ result if other constellation sets that
also claim to reproduce the Greek constellations are very different. We therefore
compare two sets of constellation stick figures in Stellarium that both claim
to be based mainly on Ptolemy’s Almagest; i) the Modern set used in our
analysis above, and ii) the Greek (Almagest) set. For this exercise we need
consider mainly the constellations that contribute to our probabilistic result,
namely; Scorpius, Lupus, Pisces, Gemini, Virgo and Ophiuchus. We consider each
constellation below.
Scorpius. Both constellations are almost the same and
differ only in the shape of the head and claws of the Scorpion. This difference
does not affect our analysis. A scorpion with the same pose, except it is
reversed 180 degrees, is seen on Pillar 43 exactly where it is expected (see
Figure 1).
Lupus. The two constellations are very similar with
only minor differences. They both describe a ‘beast’ that is usually
interpreted to be a canid jumping up with snout and legs to the right as viewed
on the western horizon. This is exactly what is seen on Pillar 43 in exactly
the right position (see Figure 1).
Pisces. 34 stars are listed in the Almagest. The
Modern constellation includes 18 of these while the Greek (Almagest) constellation
is formed by 35 stars. The fishing lines connecting the fish in the Modern set
are straighter and the fish at the end of these lines are smaller. Therefore,
the Greek (Almagest) set can be viewed as a more faithful interpretation. However,
the overall shape of both constellations is very similar to each other and to the
shape of the bending bird next to the left-most ‘sunset’ on Pillar 43 (see
Figure 5). These differences have no effect on our analysis.
Gemini. The stick figures in both sets are almost
identical and make use of nearly all the stars listed in the Almagest. However,
those in the Greek (Almagest) version include several additional stars not
listed in the Almagest that form the heads of the two twins, including some low
magnitude ones. Therefore, the Modern set can be viewed as a more faithful
rendering of Gemini listed in the Almagest. Both constellations describe a pair
of twins with linked arms and four legs below. In terms of an animal, it is
natural to interpret this constellation as a horizontal quadruped viewed from
the side with four legs below. The figure next to the middle ‘sunset’ on Pillar
43 is also a quadruped viewed from the side with four legs below (see Figure 5).
Virgo. 26 stars are listed in the Almagest. The
simpler Modern constellation includes 12 of these while the more detailed Greek
(Almagest) constellation incorporates 20 stars. The main difference is the
appearance of a head and wings on the Greek (Almagest) constellation. These
features are reflected in the description in the Almagest. Therefore, the Greek
(Almagest) version can be viewed as the more faithful reproduction. However,
the Modern and Greek (Almagest) constellations are broadly similar since both are
vertically oriented quadrupeds with their heads downwards and limbs splayed
outwards. The creature on Pillar 43 next to the right-most ‘sunset’ is also a
vertically oriented quadruped with head downwards and limbs splayed outwards.
Therefore, the differences seen in these constellations do not affect our
analysis.
Ophiuchus + Serpens. 24 stars are listed for
Ophiuchus in the Almagest. The much simpler Modern constellation incorporates 7
of these while the more detailed Greek (Almagest) constellation is formed from
25 stars. The Modern constellation describes only the head and torso of
Ophiuchus as a single loop. The Greek (Almagest) constellation, on the other
hand, includes his arms and legs and is clearly a much more faithful rendering
of the constellation described in the Almagest. Likewise, Serpens is described
by 18 stars in the Almagest but only 12 stars are included in the Modern
constellation while the Greek (Almagest) constellation is formed by 14.
However, the overall shape of Serpens is similar in these two constellations.
Overall, the Greek (Almagest) stick figure of Ophiuchus + Serpens combined is a
much more faithful rendering of the description in the Almagest than the Modern
stick figure. On Pillar 43 we see a tall bird with snake in this position. At
Kortik Tepe it appears the tall bird is instead interpreted as a bird-man with
a snake (see Figure 7), and this combination is also seen on some stone plaques
from Tepe Giyan (see Figure 8). The Greek (Almagest) constellation is a very good
match to these symbols, which leaves our ranking unchanged.
The above analysis concerns the main constellations under
discussion. However, there are also differences in many other constellations
between these two sets that might affect our overall score for the correlation
between Pillar 43 and the Greek constellations. We therefore must re-consider
our overall score in the light of these differences.
Scorpius must still rank 1st for the scorpion on
Pillar 43. Likewise, Lupus must still rank 1st for the canid to the
left of the scorpion on Pillar 43 and Ophiuchus + Serpens must still rank 1st
for the tall bird with snake to the right of the scorpion on Pillar 43. Now
let’s consider the top row of animal symbols next to the ‘sunset’ symbols (see
Figure 5). Pisces still ranks no worse than 4th for the bending bird
on the left.
For the middle ‘sunset’ we must consider how many
constellations in the Greek (Almagest) constellation set can be viewed as horizontal
quadrupeds with legs below as they set on the western horizon. We find Cancer,
Lupus, Sagittarius, Capricornus, Aries and Perseus (see Figure 13). Therefore, Gemini
should be ranked no worse than 7th.
Figure 13. Left: Horizontal quadruped at the middle-top of
Pillar 43. Right: Constellations in the Greek (Almagest) set of Stellarium that
can be viewed as horizontally oriented quadrupeds with legs below. In clockwise
order from the top-left we have; Cancer, Perseus, Saggitarius, Lupus, Gemini,
Capricornus and Aries.
For the right-most ‘sunset’ we must consider how many
constellations in the Greek (Almagest) set can be viewed as vertically oriented
quadrupeds with splayed limbs as they set on the western horizon. We find Ursa
Major, Taurus, Orion, Lupus, Leo, Cassiopia, Cepheus, Hercules, Auriga,
Andromeda and Ophiuchus (see Figure 14). Therefore, Virgo should be ranked no worse than 12th.
However, Virgo is among the clearest examples of these.
Figure 14. Left: down-crawling quadruped at the top-right of
Pillar 43. Right: Constellations in the Greek (Almaghest) set of Stellarium
that can be viewed as vertically oriented quadrupeds with splayed limbs.
Right-to-left and top-to-bottom we have; Virgo, Ursa Major, Taurus, Orion,
Lupus, Leo, Cassiopia, Cepheus, Hercules, Auriga, Andromeda and Ophiuchus.
This represents an increase in our overall score of 8, from 18
to 26. Using the OmniCalculator online web resource (Sas, 2025), we find our
probability has increased from 1 in 1.4 million to 1 in 110,000, which is
nearly a 4.5-sigma result (rather than a ~ 5 sigma result). Overall, we find that
use of the more detailed Greek (Almagest) constellation set has a moderate
effect on our probabilistic estimate. However, when we consider the other
evidence in Section 5 that also points towards an astronomical interpretation,
our conclusion is hardly changed; it is almost certain that at least some of
the animal symbols on pillar 43 represent pre-cursors to the Greek
constellations.
7.
Summary and conclusions
It is worth considering how the strong correlation between
animal symbols on Pillar 43 and the Modern constellation set in Stellarium
could have occurred. The first possibility, that it occurs by pure chance, is
extremely small and not very interesting. Another more likely possibility is
that both sets of artists saw the same patterns in the sky but without any
cultural influence. We consider this to be a reasonable possibility for a few symbols
on Pillar 43 only. Nevertheless, this possibility still supports the hypothesis
that the animal symbols on Pillar 43 represent constellations. By far the most
likely scenario, in agreement with ST17a, is that at least some of the animal
symbols on Pillar 43 are precursors to the Greek constellations and that at
least some of this cultural transmission has occurred via Ptolemy’s Almagest.
Therefore, we propose that the constellations apparent at Göbekli
Tepe, represented in terms of animal symbols, continued to be used in the
regions around southern Turkey for several thousand years during the early
Neolithic period. Çatalhöyuk circa 7,000 – 6,000 BCE, only a few hundred
kilometres from Göbekli Tepe, provides a likely example of this, as earlier
work indicates some of the animal symbolism there is consistent with a zodiacal
interpretation (Sweatman and Coombs, 2019).
Eventually, probably with some changes, we suggest these
symbols were adapted and formed the basis of the late Neolithic and Bronze-Age “inter-cultural”
style of zodiacal symbolism apparent on many artefacts recovered from ancient
Iran, the Indus Valley, Mesopotamia and Egypt (Counts and Arnold, 2010 ;Dubhrós,
2018). We suggest these symbols were used in some of the earliest hieroglyphic
writing systems in Egypt and Sumer. The animals on these symbols are generally
regarded as potential precursors to Greek zodiacal constellations (Rogers,
1998a, 1998b).
Later, we suggest this symbolism evolved such that
constellations observed by cultures in different regions of the Near East diverged
somewhat. One set was known to the early Greek poets circa 700 BCE at the
latest, and another by the Babylonians as expressed in the MUL.APIN, by 600 BCE.
It is not clear to what extent the Greeks updated their zodiacal constellations
with those known by the Babylonians circa 500 BCE.
Later still, we suggest small refinements to these symbols
and constellations were made by the classical Greek astronomers, culminating
with Ptolemy’s Almagest. Finally, the makers of Stellarium, based their Modern
constellations mainly on the ancient Greek ones, especially those described by
Ptolemy.
The possibility that constellations and their symbols can be
culturally transmitted over such long timescales, relatively unchanged, is
supported by the long timescale continuity of European Palaeolithic cave art.
This artistic style, with few changes, endured for around 30,000 years, from
the time when hunter-gatherers first migrated into Western Europe. It follows
that if an artistic tradition can endure for this long, then astronomical
information in the form of constellations and symbols can also endure for such
long timescales. As already mentioned, Sweatman and Coombs (2019) showed that most
of the animals depicted in this cave art very likely also represent
constellations observed at the solstices and equinoxes. Indeed, it might be the
case that it is the relatively unchanging sky which helped to preserve this
artistic tradition.
Therefore, the possibility that some Early Neolithic constellation
symbols can be recognised in modern astronomical software is plausible.
Competing interests
M.S. is author of a popular book on a topic related to this
work.
References
Ayaz, O. (2023). An Alternative View on Animal Symbolism in
The Göbekli Tepe Neolithic Cultural Region in the Light of New Data (Göbekli
Tepe, Sayburç). Iğdır Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi (33),
365-383. https://doi.org/10.54600/igdirsosbilder.1252928
Benz, M. and Bauer, J. (2015). On Scorpions, Birds and
Snakes - Evidence for Shamanism in Northern Mesopotamia during the Early
Holocene. J. Ritual Studies vol. 29(2), 1-23.
Burley, P. (2013). Gobekli Tepe – Temples Communicating
Ancient Cosmic Geography. https://grahamhancock.com/burleyp1/
Cauvin, J., (2000). The birth of the gods and the origins of
agriculture (Cambridge Univ. Press.).
Cheng, H., Zhang, H., Spötl, C., Baker, J., Sinha, A., Li,
H., Bartolomé, M., Moreno, A., Kathayat, G., Zhao, J., Dong, X., Li, Y., Ning,
Y., Jia, X., Zong, B., Brahim, Y.A., Pérez-Mejías, C., Cai, Y., Novello, V.F.,
Cruz, F.W., Severinghaus, J.P., An, Z., Edwards, R.L., 2020. Timing and
structure of the Younger Dryas event and its underlying climate dynamics. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences U. S. A. 117(38), 23408–23417. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.200786911
Clube, V. and Napier, W., (1982). The Cosmic Serpent
(Faber and Faber).
Clube, V. and Napier, W., (1990). The Cosmic Winter (Wiley-Blackwell).
Coşkun, A., Benz, M., Rössner, C., Deckers, K., Riehl, S.,
Alt, K.W. and Özkaya, V. (2012). New Results on the Younger Dryas Occupation at
Körtik Tepe. Neolithics, vol. 12(1), 25-32.
Counts, D.B., and Arnold, B., (2010). The Master of Animals
in Old World Iconography (Archaeolingua Alapitvany).
Dietrich, O. (2023). Shamanism at Early Neolithic Göbekli
Tepe, southeastern Turkey. Methodological contributions to an archaeology of
belief. Praehistorische Zeitschrift, vol. 99(1), 9-56.
Dietrich O., Heun M., Notroff J., Schmidt K., Zarnkow M.
(2012). The role of cult and feasting in the emergence of Neolithic
communities. New evidence from Göbekli Tepe, south-eastern Turkey. Antiquity
86(333), 674-695. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00047840
Dietrich, O., Koksal-Schmidt, C., Notroff, J. and Schmidt,
K., (2013). Establishing a radiocarbon sequence for Göbekli Tepe. State of
research and new data. Neo-Lithics 13, 36-41.
Dietrich, O. and Notroff, J. (2015). A sanctuary, or so fair
a house? In defence of an archaeology of cult at Pre-Pottery Neolithic Göbekli
Tepe. In Defining the Sacred: Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion in
the Near East. Ed. Laneri, N. (Oxford: Oxbow Books).
Dietrich, O. (2016). Of animals and a headless man. Göbekli
Tepe, Pillar 43. Tepe Telegrams: https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/2016/10/14/of-animals-and-a-headless-man-gobekli-tepe-pillar-43/.
Dubhrós, J. (2018). Cultural translation and the iconography of
the Master and Mistress of the Animals. QED: The Research Annual of the UTA
Honors College 1(1), 33-59.
Firestone, R.B., West, A., Kennett, J.P., et al., (2007). Evidence
for an extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years ago that contributed to the
megafaunal extinctions and the Younger Dryas cooling. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 104(41), 16016–16021. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.070697710
Frank, R., and Bengoa, J., (2001). Hunting the European
sky-bears: on the origins of the non-zodiacal constellations. In Astronomy,
Cosmology and Landscape, Eds. Ruggles, C., Pendergast, F. and Ray, T.
Gresky, J., Haelm, J. and Clare, L., (2017). Modified human
crania from Göbekli Tepe provide evidence for a new form of Neolithic skull
cult. Science Advances 3(6), e1700564. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.170056
Gurshtein, A.A., (2005). Did the Pre-Indo-Europeans
Influence the Formation of the Western Zodiac? J. Indo-European Studies 33(1/2),
103-150.
Hartner, W., (1965). The earliest history of the
constellations in the Near East and the motif of the lion-bull combat. J.
Near East. Studies XXIV, 1-32.
Hayden B., Villeneuve S. (2011). Astronomy in the Upper
Palaeolithic? Cambridge Archaeological Journal 21(3), 331-355.
doi:10.1017/S0959774311000400
Hodder, I., (2011). Çatalhöyük: The Leopard’s Tale
(Thames and Hudson Ltd.).
D’Huy, J. (2016) The Evolution of
Myths. Scientific American 315, 62-69.
James, P., and van
der Sluijs, M.A., (2016). The Fall of Phaethon in Context: A New Synthesis of
Mythological, Archaeological and Geological Evidence. Journal of Ancient near
Eastern Religions 16(1), 67-94. https://doi.org/10.1163/15692124-12341279
Karul, N. (2021). Buried Buildings at Pre-Pottery Neolithic
Karahantepe. Türk Arkeoloji ve Etnografya Dergisi 82, 21-31.
Kechagias, A.E. and Hoffmann, S.M. (2022). Intercultural
Misunderstandings as a possible Source of Ancient Constellations. Astronomy in
Culture 205. Eds. Hoffmann and Wolfschmidt.
Kennett, J.P., Kennett, D.J., Culleton, B.J., et al.,
(2015). Bayesian chronological analyses consistent with synchronous age of
12,835-12,735 Cal BP for Younger Dryas boundary on four continents. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences 112(32), E4344–E4353. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1507146112
Kinzel, M. and Clare, L. (2020). Monumental – compared to
what? A perspective from Göbekli Tepe. In Monumentalising Life in the
Neolithic: Narratives of continuity and change, Eds. Gebauer A.B., Sorensen,
L., Teather, A. and Valera, A.C.
Krupp, E.C., (1999). Skywatchers, Shamans & Kings:
Astronomy and the Archaeology of Power.
Kurtik, G. E. (2019). muluz3, mul dGula, and the Early
History of Mesopotamian Constellations. Journal for the History of
Astronomy, 50(3), 339-359. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021828619853676
Kurtik, G. E. (2021). On the origin of the 12 zodiac
constellation system in ancient Mesopotamia. Journal for the History of
Astronomy, 52(1), 53-66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021828620980544
Marler, J., Haarmann, H. (2007). The Goddess and the Bear: Hybrid
Imagery and Symbolism at Çatalhöyük. The Journal of Archaeomythology 3(1),
48-79.
McFadden, J. (2023). Razor Sharp: The role of Occam’s razor
in science. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1530(1), 8-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.15086
Moore, A.M.T., Kennett, J.P., Napier, W.M., Bunch, T.E.,
Weaver, J.C., LeCompte, M., Adedeji, A.V., Hackley, P., Kletetschka, G.,
Hermes, R.E., Wittke, J.H., Razink, J.J., Gaultois, M.W., West, A., (2020).
Evidence of cosmic impact at Abu Hureyra, Syria at the Younger Dryas onset
(similar to 12.8 ka): high-temperature melting at > 2200 degrees C. Scientific
Reports 10, 4185. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-60867-w
Napier, W.M.,
(2010). Palaeolithic extinctions and the Taurid Complex. Monthly Notices of
the Royal Astronomical Society 405(3), 1901–1906. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16579.x
Napier, W.M.
(2013). Reply to Boslough et al.: Decades of comet research counter their
claims. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(45), E4171. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1315467110
Notroff, J.,
Dietrich, O., Dietrich, L., Tvetmarken, C.L., Kinzel, M., Schlindwein, J.,
Sönmez, D., Clare, L., (2017). More than a vulture: A response to Sweatman and
Tsikritsis. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 17(2), 57-63.
Peters, J., and
Schmidt, K. (2004). Animals in the Symbolic World of Pre-Pottery Neolithic
Göbekli Tepe, South-eastern Turkey: A Preliminary Assessment. Anthropozoologica
39, 179-218.
Powell J.L. Premature rejection in science: The case of the
Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis. Science Progress. 2022;105(1).
doi:10.1177/00368504211064272
Rogers, J.H., (1998a). Origins of the ancient
constellations: I. The Mesopotamian traditions. J. British Astron. Assoc.
108, 9-28.
Rogers, J.H., (1998b). Origins of the ancient
constellations: II. The Mediterranean traditions. J. British Astron. Assoc.
108, 79-89.
Roy, E.E., (1984). The origin of the constellations. Vistas
in Astronomy 27, 171-197.
Rutherford, I.
(2019). From Zalpa to Brauron: Hittite-Greek religious convergence on the Black
Sea. In Religious convergence in the Ancient Mediterranean, Eds. Blakely,
S. and Collins, B. J (Atlanta: Lockwood Press).
Sas, W. (2025).
Omni Calculator. https://www.omnicalculator.com/statistics/dice
Schaefer, B. E. (2004). The Latitude and Epoch for the
Origin of the Astronomical Lore of Eudoxus. Journal for the History of
Astronomy, 35(2), 161 223. https://doi.org/10.1177/002182860403500204
Schaefer, B.E., (2007). The latitude and epoch for the
origin of the astronomical lore in MUL.APIN. Bulletin American Astron. Soc. 39,
157.
Schmidt, K., (2000). Göbekli Tepe, Southeastern Turkey: A
Preliminary Report on the 1995-1999 Excavations. Paleorient 26, 45-54.
Schmidt, K., (2011). Göbekli Tepe: A Neolithic site in
southeastern Anantolia. The Oxford handbook of ancient Anatolia (10,000 –
323 BCE), Eds. McMahon and Steadman (Oxford Handbooks Online).
Stellarium, (2022). See stellarium.org
Sweatman, M.B., (2019). Prehistory Decoded (Matador).
Sweatman, M.B., (2021). The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis:
Review of the impact evidence. Earth-Science Reviews 218, 103677.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103677
Sweatman, M.B. (2024). Representations of calendars and time
at Göbekli Tepe and Karahan Tepe support an astronomical interpretation of
their symbolism. Time and Mind. https://doi.org/10.1080/1751696X.2024.2373876
Sweatman, M.B., and Coombs, A., (2019). Decoding European
Palaeolithic art: extremely ancient knowledge of precession of the equinoxes. Athens
Journal of History 5, 1-30.
Sweatman, M.B., and Tsikritsis, D., (2017a). Decoding
Göbekli Tepe with archaeoastronomy: What does the fox say? Mediterranean
Archaeometry and Archaeology 17(1), 233-250.
Sweatman, M.B., and Tsikritsis, D., (2017b). Comment on
“More than a vulture: A response to Sweatman and Tsikritsis”. Mediterranean
Archaeometry and Archaeology 17(2), 63-70.
Toomer, G., (1984). Ptolemy’s Almagest (Princeton).
Turner, R., Roberts, N., Eastwood, W.J., Jenkins, E., and
Rosen, A., (2010.) Fire, climate and the origins of agriculture: Micro-charcoal
records of biomass burning during the last glacial–interglacial transition in
Southwest Asia. J. Quaternary Science 25, 371-386. https://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.1332
Comments
Post a Comment