> Very likely an ibex. This is because the feline
> was probably used for Cancer in Palaeolithic art
> and Catalhoyuk shrines at least. We also find that
> the ibex was used only either for Gemini or
> Aquarius in all the places we have looked, from GT
> through to Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. I know
> you think that it looks more like a feline, and
> you are welcome to your opinion - I can easily see
> it both ways. But the statistical case for Pillar
> 43 makes it extremely likely your are wrong.
Thank you for clarifying. Let's have a close look at the wee beastie:
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But I have to say, that's the sorriest looking ibex I ever did see. For comparison, here are some other felines from Gobekli Tepe: (Note - AFAIK, there are no comparative images of ibexes.)
> also the fragment from GT we have discussed
> before. If this fragment also represents the date
> of the YD event, then the 'long-legged' quadruped
> on this fragment probably represents Gemini, and
> these legs are clearly not those of a feline. So
> there is even corroborating evidence at GT that
> Gemini is represented by an ibex, not a feline.
I assume you're talking about this slab from Enclosure D:
Note that only the bottom half of the long-legged quadruped is visible, and yet you are happy to ID it as an ibex, and claim it as corroborating evidence. I count three indefensible leaps of logic in that paragraph. However, I would say that it is very unlikely to be an ibex, on the basis of the shape of the forelegs. In GT iconography, the forelegs of prey/grazing species tend to bend forward and then down, in a kind of S-shape. Check out aurochs, sheep, mouflon, and ass. This is surely the group that would include ibex. Fiercer species, however, eg fox, boar, hyena, and feline, have big toothy grins and forelegs that go straight down and then forward in a V-shape, often with a suggestion of claws. The partial image on the slab fits into the second group, which does not include ibex. Or is all this irrelevant, because it conflicts with your statistical schema?
Details, details. Why do I keep going on about the damn ibex/feline thing? Because you insist that your statistical results empower you to wave away awkward archaeological facts, as irrelevancies. A perfectly recognizable feline can become a sad, headless ibex with a huge square butt, and you're fine with that, because in your mind, stats rule. But, Martin, this is exactly how you debunk yourself. You cannot allow the P43 feline to be itself, because it would set up an irresolvable contradiction with your claims for Catal Huyuk. You will insist that using Western-Lore stick-figures in your ranking table is just fine, because the ancients of Gobekli Tepe used the same Western-lore constellations, as proven by your statistical results based on the ranking table.
I wish you could sit down and have a chat with the poor sods who carved those images all those thousands of years ago; I have a feeling they'd set you straight, after they finished laughing themselves silly.