> Hello Rebecca
> So, let me share my impressions, while mentioning
> that prior to this month I had no idea what an
> ibex was. If you'd said that it was one of those
> small boxes that people used to keep on their
> desks, of clients phone numbers and addresses, I
> would have believed you.
:) :) :)
Now, on to business. Thank you for that considered reply, PB. I’m enjoying conversing with you. But I have a confession: I chose that ibex silhouette in particular because it could, to an inexperienced and subjective viewer, suggest a superficial likeness to the little beast on Pillar 43. Now we can look at why it’s impossible.
First, here is how Martin initially described the image: “The middle ‘handbag’ is accompanied by a standing or charging quadruped of some type, perhaps a gazelle, goat or ibex, with large horns or ears bent backwards over its body. Alternatively, if it is pictured facing the other direction, it might depict a crouching rat, with a long tail over its back.” But thereafter, he refers to it consistently as “charging ibex” or (charging) “ibex/gazelle.”
Well, there are two different ways to try making this image into an ibex; we’ll call them the charging ibex and the standing ibex. For the first, A is the horn, B is the forelegs, C is the hind legs, and D is the big square butt that I’ve been teasing Martin about for a few days. Its forelegs are off the ground, in a stance that could be called charging, but the poor beast has no head.
With the standing ibex, A is still the horn, B is the face/muzzle tucked down against the neck, C is the forelegs, and D is the hind legs. But alas, this means that the beast’s horns are growing out of the back of its neck instead of immediately above its eyes; all four legs are planted firmly on the same level, so the disproportionate narrowness of the belly is a problem; and the great width of the hind legs is unexplained. Not to mention the fact that there are teeth and snarl lines between the legs.
On the other hand, the feline interpretation has all the elements in the right place and proper proportions, and matches other feline images at Gobekli Tepe in form and attributes. To a viewer familiar with the corpus, the image is unambiguous.
It’s also not a small issue that, AFAIK, ibex does not appear in the faunal assemblage at Gobekli Tepe. Gazelle does, and other caprids, like mouflon, but they won’t give you that astonishing and totally unrealistic “horn.” In contrast, there are at least two species of fierce feline represented in the bones.
I keep going on about it, at the risk of becoming really boring, because this misidentification has a knock-on falsifying effect on Martin’s whole shaky tower of logic.
PS - with ref to a previous message: I'm already in BC. So if I were a football fan, appropriately enough, I'd be cheering for the Lions. :D