In your graphics table it is the comparison second from the bottom:
In your article, I could not find the "correction" of your paper (apparently adding Scorpius to your stats table). But corrections are a good habit.
Your comment somewhere above that the archetypal interpretation of cultural media is 'after Jung', indicates that you do not understand philosophy, or believe philosophy to be irrelevant to culture. While you pursue the common or garden variety.
You turned statistics from a science into a craft, to match your astronomical interpretation of two artworks. You used two Gobekli artworks to drag your hyper-ancient assumed 'records' of Taurid meteors into artwork D43, where it becomes a snake (in a can of worms). You have no apparent familiarity with archaeology, anthropology, art history, or any of the human sciences in which you are dabbling.
You wrote: "The scorpion... largely determines the use of the western constellation set. Therefore, no circularity... a problem with the original 'fox' paper has since been corrected." I had criticised your paper for circular logic two years ago. Adding an animal or two now (give or take a species change or two, and an orientation flip) to your equations, does not fix the false logic of testing which 'zodiac' best fits an artwork to your assumptions about proto-science.
As Carl Popper said, ideally we should agree up front what to test, and how. Archaeo astronomy is not agreed on the quest to find zodiacs in art or rock art. If we agreed on what to count, the numbers and odds would be less important (large numbers already make meaningless equations); and the results would better reveal cultural media, and our assumptions about culture. Then we could tweak or correct our assumptions; then analyses; then dating.
But as the Crimson Queen said, 'Sentence first, evidence later.'
Water reeds in the Gobekli pillar D43 artwork, you propose as dates, planets or comets. A statistical abacus perhaps?
TA TA TAAA... In this month's episode of Horrible Prehistories; Wonders of Ice Age astronomy. See Dr Martin Sweatman conjure countless millennia of science, and decode messages left to us by wily ancient encoders, amazing, they used a reed abacus, they were statisticians just like you...
Stuff and nonsense. Remove the beams of the zodiac, statistics and syllogisms from your eye, to better see the splinter of meaning in culture.
Edited 16 time(s). Last edit at 12-Aug-19 16:27 by Edmond.