Armenian Stone Henge Story - CNN

[Siggie]

Not new, but it didn't come up in a search.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="853" height="510" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/jBh9qOFOIf0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Armenian Stone Henge Story - CNN

Not new, but it didn't come up in a search.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="853" height="510" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/jBh9qOFOIf0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It began to loose credibility towards the middle, and had lost it entirely by the end.

The (what sounds like) "Gubelitepe" in "Historical Armenia" mentioned is actually Gobekli Tepe in southern Turkey near Urfa, geographically a part of northern Syria and nowhere near any territory that could be called "Historical Armenia". See more pictures of it here: http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wor...-gobekli-tepe/

Also, Stonehenge is dated by radiocarbon dating, not by "scientists believe" dating. Until there is a proper archaeological investigation of Karahunge, its age is speculation.

[londontsi]

Re: Armenian Stone Henge Story - CNN

To me the whole story is journalistic hype and BS for the masses.
It is incredible the number of web sites carry the same message, “Armenians first inhabitants of Britain” .

The simple explanation, ( more plausible) ......

http://omacl.org/Anglo/part1.html

"De tractu Armoricano." -- Bede, "Ecclesiastical History" i.
I. The word Armenia occurring a few lines above in Bede, it was perhaps inadvertently written by the Saxon compiler of the "Chronicle" instead of Armorica.


Armorica is part of Gaul, ( "old" France). Geographically makes sence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armorica

[KanadaHye]

Re: Armenian Stone Henge Story - CNN

Yeah, sure.... Armenians were first inhabitants of Britain. That explains why there was a British vessel called the "Armenian" used in the battle for Baku in WW1.

[Siggie]

Re: Armenian Stone Henge Story - CNN

It began to loose credibility towards the middle, and had lost it entirely by the end.

The (what sounds like) "Gubelitepe" in "Historical Armenia" mentioned is actually Gobekli Tepe in southern Turkey near Urfa, geographically a part of northern Syria and nowhere near any territory that could be called "Historical Armenia". See more pictures of it here: http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wor...-gobekli-tepe/

Also, Stonehenge is dated by radiocarbon dating, not by "scientists believe" dating. Until there is a proper archaeological investigation of Karahunge, its age is speculation.

You're saying at no point in history, did Armenians occupy that area? I imagine once they get the thing dated, it'll be easy enough to examine evidence of that time period to determine who occupied the region.

It didn't sound to me like they were making a definite statement. They said there's debate that's ongoing and it may be older than Stonehenge. It seems like they were still working on dating it at the time this was broadcast. Perhaps I'm more sensitive to the particular words they used (scientific training), but they said things like could be, may be, etc. Now will the average person take away something different? I suppose. They could have stressed more that conclusions about the exact age and thus its age relative to stonehenge are still premature, but journalists are rarely good about presenting science accurately. In scientific circles they're notorious for making the kind of claims (e.g. regarding causality in research paradigms that do not allow for causal conclusions to be drawn) that the researchers took pains not to say.
I don't think it's as simple as carbon dating it. What would they carbon date at either site? The rock? That's not very helpful and I don't even think you can do it. The rock may be older, but it doesn't tell us when the rocks were moved and placed there, does it? I was also under the impression that you can only carbon date organic material, but archeology, geology, etc is not my area.

[gkv]

Re: Armenian Stone Henge Story - CNN

The simple explanation, ( more plausible) ......

http://omacl.org/Anglo/part1.html

"De tractu Armoricano." -- Bede, "Ecclesiastical History" i.
I. The word Armenia occurring a few lines above in Bede, it was perhaps inadvertently written by the Saxon compiler of the "Chronicle" instead of Armorica.

On the other hand, the work that you quote mentions Scythia in the following sentence.

"Then happened it, that the
Picts came south from Scythia, with long ships, not many; and,
landing first in the northern part of Ireland, they told the
Scots that they must dwell there"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythia

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Armenian Stone Henge Story - CNN

You're saying at no point in history, did Armenians occupy that area? I imagine once they get the thing dated, it'll be easy enough to examine evidence of that time period to determine who occupied the region.

It didn't sound to me like they were making a definite statement. They said there's debate that's ongoing and it may be older than Stonehenge. It seems like they were still working on dating it at the time this was broadcast. Perhaps I'm more sensitive to the particular words they used (scientific training), but they said things like could be, may be, etc. Now will the average person take away something different? I suppose. They could have stressed more that conclusions about the exact age and thus its age relative to stonehenge are still premature, but journalists are rarely good about presenting science accurately. In scientific circles they're notorious for making the kind of claims (e.g. regarding causality in research paradigms that do not allow for causal conclusions to be drawn) that the researchers took pains not to say.
I don't think it's as simple as carbon dating it. What would they carbon date at either site? The rock? That's not very helpful and I don't even think you can do it. The rock may be older, but it doesn't tell us when the rocks were moved and placed there, does it? I was also under the impression that you can only carbon date organic material, but archeology, geology, etc is not my area.

You can carbon-date organic material found in-situ during excavations - such as material found around the edges of whatever pit was originally dug to support the stones, or from man-made objects associated with the site like bone or wooden tools or burials or rubbish pits. Much of the history of Stonehenge has been understood because of this sort of carbon-dating, and it has revealed that there were many older henges on the same site before its current appearance was reached. I don't thing any investigations of that sort has happened at Karahunge - so not only do we not know anything specific about its date, we do not know if its current form evolved over time or was a result of a single building period.

There is thought to have been another Karahunge-type monument located in the mountains to the southwest of Dogubayazit, overlooking Ararat. Only there all of the stones have been moved and reused as gravestones or have been disturbed by treasure hunters. Some of these are stones with holes through them like Karahunge that the crazy Noah's ark hunters claim are "anchor stones".

It isn't really correct to talk about "Armenians" in a 2000 or 3000BC context. There were no Armenians 5000 years ago.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Armenian Stone Henge Story - CNN

It isn't really correct to talk about "Armenians" in a 2000 or 3000BC context. There were no Armenians 5000 years ago.

What evidence do you have of this?

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Armenian Stone Henge Story - CNN

What evidence do you have of this?

You are unknowingly embarassing yourself by asking such a question. It is not correct to talk about "Armenians" in a 2000 or 3000BC context.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Armenian Stone Henge Story - CNN

You are unknowingly embarassing yourself by asking such a question. It is not correct to talk about "Armenians" in a 2000 or 3000BC context.

So I'll ask again. What evidence do you have?