Herman Lewis, Archaeological Services, California (YouTube channel Herman Lewis
491 subscribers
32 videos; Twitter:
@TheLastNatufian
5,678 Followers) reckons that he has "
discovered that Göbeklitepe Tablets map the entire “Fertile Crescent”, Mesopotamia/Egypt/Greek/Roman gods are caricature maps, Lascaux maps Atlantis/Europe, + more!". Here is a pinned tweet:
Herman Lewis
@TheLastNatufian
Jun 13, 2024
The Daily Göbeklitepe- What it is!
After much thought, I understand why Göbeklitepe is not a settlement. It was a governing body with representatives from the Nations. The Kings, Titans, and “Gods” of old. Not Allah. Names of rulers, their families, and lands…which are the same in many cases (example: Washington).
For the Ancients to hunt, farm, trade, and flourish far and wide…there had to be an understanding: rules, teamwork, expectations, and accountability… Civics!
History is missing the stories of ancient cooperation between the ancient nations and focuses primarily on the turmoil.
The lands have changed hands many times but their shapes have remained much the same since the Ice Age. [...]
His ideas piqued my interest only when he recklessly decided to answer my question: "
where exactly did
Graham Hancock's imagined "survivors" of a cosmic cataclysm 12900BP hide out, nurturing their "advanced knowledge" and "idea of agriculture" until they got around to passing them on three millennia or more later?" ·
Herman Lewis
@TheLastNatufian
Aug 19
It’s right there on the map and in the stories…Turkiye and other highlands. The “Vulture Stone” at Göbeklitepe alone maps the dark red area. Farming moved north with the climate. Cheers.
Uh-oh. Another vulture-stone devotee. This was rather a stupid answer to an observation based on a map, the WHOLE POINT OF WHICH was that there was nothing of the 10th to 13th millennia shown on it! In response to his brash assertion, I pointed out the fact that the blobs on the map begin 9600-8500BCE (so quite a bit later than the "catastrophe" of 12900BP) and that Göbekli Tepe was built between 11.6 and 10.2 KYA, leaving open the question I raised about where this postulated ("post-catastrophe") "Survivor Civilization" was functioning in the
one-and-a-half MILLENNIA between 12.9KYA ("YD Impact") and the beginning of PPNB c. 11.5 and 7.0 KYA?
As for his explanation about the answer being "in the stories", I asked what specific "stories" he was referring to? I also asked if he thought the "vulture stone" (Pillar 43 in Enclosure D) at Göbekli Tepe is a map? Why? I pointed out that it would be methodologically incorrect to just interpret a few pictures on one stone in isolation from their surroundings, how does that interpretation relate to the other 12 enclosure D pillars? How do they support the interpretation that this one stone is a map?
Note that as far as I know, the excavation team at Gobekli Tepe has not yet produced even a preliminary atlas showing photos of the faces of each of the pillars at this site from which one could glean even a preliminary picture of the full repertoire of images in each of the oval enclosed areas.
This is a major fail on their part, even the pictures alone (without their considered interpretations) would be of wider interest, to the public as a whole (these excavations have been going on for 25 years and there is a major deficit in proper published information about this site which is beginning to get disquieting).
Mr Lewis failed to answer the question about those "stories" to which he referred that resolve the issue where these "survivors" found their home after the cataclysm.
He did though rather defensively respond about the maps.
Herman Lewis@TheLastNatufian Aug 19: It’s not “just a few”, I can read them all…but your condescension is noted. There are three sides to D43 and combined map the Levant. The other stones add to it for the entire Fertile Crescent. It’s about resource management and trade, nothing mystical or heavenly. It’s the “Table of Nations” and “all of the animals of the world” come to rest at the top of the Ararat Mountains. Take care.
As far as I am concerned, if someone presents an interpretation of the past based on material remains (as here), there is no "condescension" in asking a perfectly reasonable question about the methodology behind Herman Lewis' assertively-stated interpretation. The single illustration he supplied to elaborate on his idea leaves it still unclear on what he bases this, it is too bad that in addition, the guy simply cannot draw. The bird on the stone looks up, his looks down and is scrawnier, the scorpion's been rotated by 20 degrees, positioned totally differently from what's on the stone and in relation to the bird, on his drawing, the bird's tail has been distorted relative to the original, etc. etc. In my opinion, what the juxtaposition of these two images shows is that Lewis has not analysed and respected the image (or set out to test his theory) as much as tried to fit it onto a preconception (that it is a map) and tried to force its elements onto a modern map. In addition (leaving aside Ararat!!) to have a "table of nations" he needs to be able to show there were "nations" between 11.6 to 10.2 KYA, where is the evidence? Again, perfectly reasonable points to make on the presentation of evidence.
Herman Lewis
@TheLastNatufian 17h
The Nations are the animal regions like the Scorpion…and they are Tablets of Nations. Like I said, I can’t understand map reading for you. Besides, you seem to have all the answers to your own questions so I’ve wasted time replying to you. Won’t happen again.
Attached to this was
a photo montage showing the scorpion overlaid on a region of hilly land where if you squint and ignore the other features, several converging tributary valleys "look like" the bent right legs of the creature and parallel valleys running off a scarp "look like" the left legs anbd a row of hills like the tail.
Also attached was a map with an unexplained mishmash of geometric shapes drawn over it. What it is supposed to "prove" is anyone's guess.

In the lack of their author supplying any alternative explanation, it seems that the author has picked out features of the image of the stone and (what he sees as) individual elements are represented by ovals and squares drawn "somewhere" on a modern relief map. It seems it is these that the author then for some reason calls "nations". On this basis, he says that the slabs he used as the single source for the shapes on the map ARE therefore "tables of nations". If that is a correct interpretation of what this guy is saying (and feel free to check out his YouTube channel where there are hours of videos on this)
that'd just be plain bonkers, however one wants to look at it. It is not a matter of my "not being able to read a map" (as Lewis intimates), it is his [undefined] methodology that raises questions. Especially as, as I pointed out, the positions of the ovals on the map do NOT correspond in detail to the position of the figures on the stones. In order to even begin to assess this, we need to see a detailed correspondence analysis. We also need him to lay out the archaeological correlates of his postulated "nations". By what means are they definable?
One very obvious pointer to the flaws in teh argumentation is that the scorpion [32°45'30.36"N 36°40'36.84"E according to Mr Lewis] is inexplicably shown a different SIZE and a different POSITION on the two maps he posted in the same thread on the same day AS WELL AS being in a different relation to the projecting bit of the bird symbol.
Mr Lewis:
I guess it is easier than answering real questions about his pseudoarchaeological fantasies.
./