The problem with the Collins/Hale interpretation is that no statistical confidence estimate can be attached to it. You will always be able to match a given shape to some stars in the sky - which is what thy do. It is the same as looking for shapes in the clouds. It is scientifically meaningless, i.e. nonsense. There is a HUGE difference with my work. My work uses a scientific method, and is sufficiently constrained that a statistical estimate of confidence can be derived. Although there is some subjectivity in the pattern matching, this is contained entirely within the ranking table. By examining the ranking table, you can see the level of subjectivity for yourself and decide whether it plausible. You would have to see things very differently to me to reduce the statistics to a meaningless level. In addition to that, my zodiacal hypothesis has been validated by comparison with radiocarbon dates of Paleolithic cave art. It shows the same system had likely been in existence for tens of thousands of years. So there is a MASSIVE difference. Essentially, my work is almost certainly correct (to an extraordinary level of confidence), which means all other contradictory interpretations must be almost certainly wrong.

Yes, GT is the first instance we currently know where the precise position of the sun relative to the constellations was used to record a date with even greater accuracy that simply recording the four solstices/equinoxes. I have a blogpost about this - essentially we can use Pillar 43 to date the Younger Dryas event with about the same level of accuracy as all the radiocarbon studies of the YD 'black mat' combined. It's pretty clear what GT is all about.


The 'handbag' symbols, which are probably 'sunset' symbols, are seen again later in late Neolithic Mesopotamia and Egypt. I don't know if there is any link to the classic 'handbags' seen carried by deities across the world, including Mesopotamia. Too early to say, but I don't think it can be ruled out.