The Mount Ararat site--publicized by a Kurdish-Turkish-Chinese
team in 2009--is a prehistoric archaeological site. Nothing in my four years of
research of the site and its material culture has altered this conclusion.
Please do what you can to protect, preserve, and further the research of the archaeological features and material culture at the Mount Ararat prehistoric site.
Please do what you can to protect, preserve, and further the research of the archaeological features and material culture at the Mount Ararat prehistoric site.
Below are answers to criticisms and allegations against the
Mount Ararat prehistoric archaeological site by groups of fraudsters and haters. I also break down each critique with their associated
groups.
1. The fraudsters. This group comprises Randall Price, Murat Sahin, Amy Beam, Richard Bright, and Don Patton. They claimed the Ararat prehistoric site did not exist because they did not want an archaeological site to decrease fund raising for their Noah’s ark fraud.
 |
| The Price-Sahin-Beam Noah's ark fraud: Millions of dollars raised for an empty hole in the ice. |
This group is conducting one of the greatest frauds in history—a dig for Noah’s ark. They have raised millions of dollars to dig an empty, fifty-foot hole through ice near the summit of Mount Ararat. This scam began in 2009 and has continued throughout 2013 resulting in no human features or artifacts being found. The link to the Price-Sahin-Beam Noah's ark fraud is below.
Price-Sahin-Beam Ark Fraud
These individuals target anyone who is trying to promote the
protection, preservation, and research at the Ararat prehistoric site. The
links to information about the actual prehistoric archaeological site on Mount Ararat are below.
2. The accomplice. Michael Heiser, an alleged blogger against pseudo-archaeology with a website entitled “Paleobabble” is an accomplice in the Price-Sahin-Beam fraud.
Heiser was the first to spread Price's lies to the media that the Chinese-Turkish-Kurdish discovery of a prehistoric site on Mount Ararat did not exist. Heiser knew better.
Heiser was informed of everything about the Price-Sahin-Beam
fraud. Heiser knew that millions of dollars were being raised by Randall Price, Don Patton, and Richard Bright to dig less than ten (10) feet of ice each year, on the top of Mount Ararat. Further, Heiser knew that some of the money was going to the bank account of a convicted murderer, Murat Sahin. Heiser knew Price's group was digging an empty hole in the ice and yet, he used his power and media influence to try to support the fraud and defame an actual Ararat prehistoric site and any scientist trying to conduct research
at this locale. The links to information about the the personalities who supported or defamed the Ararat prehistoric site are below:
Michael Heiser was (and is) an integral
player in one of the biggest pseudo-archaeology scams in history--the Price-Sahin-Beam
Noah’s ark fraud.
3. Other objections to historic preservation efforts.
Below is a list of objections to historic preservation efforts at the Ararat site. I answer each objection with peer-reviewed scientific studies.
a. Spiders Cannot be at High Elevations?
The first objection is that because the Ararat prehistoric site has cobwebs, the site is not on Mount Ararat. Individuals argue that spiders should not be present at elevations between 3,000 and 4,700 meters above sea-level.
My response: Ridiculous.
Arachnids (spiders) are found as high as 6,600 meters above sea level--two thousand meters higher than the Ararat prehistoric site. See Wanless, F. R. 1975. Spiders of the family Salticidae from the upper slopes of Everest and Makalu. Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society 3 (5): 132–136.
In addition, spiders and other insects are visible at Camp 2, the station before the final ascent up Mount Ararat--at 4,100 meters a.s.l. That spider webs are found in the Mount Ararat prehistoric site is completely expected.
b. Cross-grain Marks on Wood Planks indicate a Modern Wood Planer?
The second argument is that because timbers from the Ararat site show "straight, cross grain marks on wood that is both parallel and equally spaced," these cuts "can only be produced with an industrial type planer that has a rotating cutting head with straight cutting blades.”
My response: Wrong.
First, the cross-grain cuts on the planks at the Ararat site are not parallel and equally spaced. Also, the marks are set at different angles.
Second, there are other examples in archaeological contexts of "straight, cross grain marks on wood that is both parallel and equally spaced" that were not made by modern tools.
The first of many examples is from the Binissafuller, a 5-6th Century AD vessel excavated in a cove of Minorca, in the Balearic Islands (de Juan et al. 2010:72).
These vertical cross-grain incisions were found on an ancient plank from an archaeological site and not made by a modern planer
Here is the citation for the Fiumicino: Boetto, G. 2010. Les navires de Fiumicino: influences fluviales et maritimes. In Transferts Technologiques En Architecture Navale Méditerranéenne De L’Antiquité Aux Temps Modernes: Identité Technique Et Identité Culturelle, P. Pomey (editor), pp. 137-149, Institute Francais D’Etudes Anatoliennes Georges - Dumézil / De Boccard, Paris, France.
Third, the wood timbers at the Ararat prehistoric site show shaping by adzes or axe-like stone tools that were widely used in archaeological contexts and not in modern times. See Link for Adze Marks. I provide several example below from Locus 5, Area A, at the Mount Ararat prehistoric site.
This position ignores evidence that conflicts with scientific data or archaeological analogies.
The truth is that there is a prehistoric site on Mount Ararat that conflicts with the philosophical or religious beliefs of some individuals.
c. Columnar Basalt?
Others surprisingly argue that Locus 8 is not an archaeological feature but a natural cave of columnar basalt.
My Response: Incorrect.
Locus 8 does not portray columnar basalt. Instead, Locus 8 shows an example of waddle architecture, an ancient building technique where bundles of tree stems were lashed together with cords made from vegetal material. In Locus 8, vegetal cords are visible surrounding the bundles of tree stems.
In other loci at the Ararat prehistoric site, the vegetal cords are fully visible and made of flaxen, a species of the genus Linum.
This ancient building technique is also found at other archaeological sites from the Late Epipaleolithic (13,100-9,600 BC) and Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (9,600-8,500 BC) periods. Evidence for waddle architecture is found in archaeological contexts in the Republic of Turkey, along the southeastern coast at Fikirtepe, Pendik, İstanbul Yenikapı, and Aktopraklık. These structures represent round or oval wattle-and-daub huts, with semi-sunken floors, dating to 6,450-6,100 BC (Özdoğan and Başgelen, 2007).
Other waddle structures are found at Shillourokambos in southern Cyprus dating to 8,200 BC (Guilaine and Briois, 2001); Çatal Höyük with contexts dating to 7,500 BC (Hodder, 2003); at at Hallan Çemi with radiocarbon dates ca. 9,000 BC (Rosenberg et al.). At Çayönü, archaeologist found horizontal bands of waddle, which is similar to Locus 8 at the Ararat prehistoric site where three bands of waddle bundles are placed on top of each other (Braidwood 1981, Schirmer 1988).
Again, attempts to interpret a prehistoric cultural site as a natural columnar basalt is just another example of individuals trying to degrade an archaeological site by saying it does not exist.
d. Preservation is Too Good.
Others argue that the preservation at the Mount Ararat prehistoric site is too good and that is why it does not exist.
My response: No.
Many people are familiar with the baby woolly mammoth found in 1977 in the Kolyma River, Siberia, or the hunter recovered in 1991 in the Schnalstal glacier in the Ötztal Alps. These are wonderful examples of the preservation of organic materials in ice, at high elevations, or both.
The Ararat archaeological features show excellent preservation because these contexts are also at high elevations, between 3,000 and 4,700 meters above sea-level, preserved under multiple layers of rocks and ice, in lower oxygenated air.
4. The haters. This group comprises David Liang and Andy Wong. Liang was a nuclear energy scientist several decades ago, with no experience in archaeology. Wong or “HowTingDog” is a failed PhD student, who received a terminal Master’s degree. [If you drop out of a PhD program, the department will usually give you a Master’s degree for trying and failing.]
Below is a list of objections to historic preservation efforts at the Ararat site. I answer each objection with peer-reviewed scientific studies.
a. Spiders Cannot be at High Elevations?
The first objection is that because the Ararat prehistoric site has cobwebs, the site is not on Mount Ararat. Individuals argue that spiders should not be present at elevations between 3,000 and 4,700 meters above sea-level.
My response: Ridiculous.
Arachnids (spiders) are found as high as 6,600 meters above sea level--two thousand meters higher than the Ararat prehistoric site. See Wanless, F. R. 1975. Spiders of the family Salticidae from the upper slopes of Everest and Makalu. Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society 3 (5): 132–136.
In addition, spiders and other insects are visible at Camp 2, the station before the final ascent up Mount Ararat--at 4,100 meters a.s.l. That spider webs are found in the Mount Ararat prehistoric site is completely expected.
b. Cross-grain Marks on Wood Planks indicate a Modern Wood Planer?
The second argument is that because timbers from the Ararat site show "straight, cross grain marks on wood that is both parallel and equally spaced," these cuts "can only be produced with an industrial type planer that has a rotating cutting head with straight cutting blades.”
 |
| Modern Planer |
 |
| Diagram of Modern Planer |
My response: Wrong.
First, the cross-grain cuts on the planks at the Ararat site are not parallel and equally spaced. Also, the marks are set at different angles.
 |
Mount Ararat prehistoric site: Cross-grain incisions at irregular intervals in Locus 5. |
Second, there are other examples in archaeological contexts of "straight, cross grain marks on wood that is both parallel and equally spaced" that were not made by modern tools.
The first of many examples is from the Binissafuller, a 5-6th Century AD vessel excavated in a cove of Minorca, in the Balearic Islands (de Juan et al. 2010:72).
 |
Binissafuller cross-grain incisions. |
 |
Wider view of plank from Binissafuller. |
These vertical cross-grain incisions were found on an ancient plank from an archaeological site and not made by a modern planer
Here is the citation for the Binissafuller: de Juan, C., X. Aguelo, A. Palomo, and O. Pons.
2010. La construccion naval del pecio de Binissafuller (Menorca-Islas
Baleares), Analisis de los restos de casco conservados. In Transferts Technologiques En Architecture Navale Méditerranéenne De
L’Antiquité Aux Temps Modernes: Identité Technique
Et Identité Culturelle, P. Pomey (editor), pp. 59-76, Institute Francais D’Etudes Anatoliennes
Georges - Dumézil / De Boccard, Paris, France.
Another example is from a plank from the Fiumicino, a 4-5th Century AD vessel excavated in the port of Rome (Boetto 2010:149). Again, the vertical, cross-grain incisions, which are from an archaeological site, were made without a modern planer.
 |
View of plank from the Fiumicino. |
 |
Closer view of Fiumicino plank. |
Here is the citation for the Fiumicino: Boetto, G. 2010. Les navires de Fiumicino: influences fluviales et maritimes. In Transferts Technologiques En Architecture Navale Méditerranéenne De L’Antiquité Aux Temps Modernes: Identité Technique Et Identité Culturelle, P. Pomey (editor), pp. 137-149, Institute Francais D’Etudes Anatoliennes Georges - Dumézil / De Boccard, Paris, France.
Third, the wood timbers at the Ararat prehistoric site show shaping by adzes or axe-like stone tools that were widely used in archaeological contexts and not in modern times. See Link for Adze Marks. I provide several example below from Locus 5, Area A, at the Mount Ararat prehistoric site.
..jpg) |
Adze marks from Locus 5. |
 |
Adze marks on planks in Locus 5. |
This position ignores evidence that conflicts with scientific data or archaeological analogies.
The truth is that there is a prehistoric site on Mount Ararat that conflicts with the philosophical or religious beliefs of some individuals.
c. Columnar Basalt?
Others surprisingly argue that Locus 8 is not an archaeological feature but a natural cave of columnar basalt.
 |
| Columnar Basalt. |
My Response: Incorrect.
Locus 8 does not portray columnar basalt. Instead, Locus 8 shows an example of waddle architecture, an ancient building technique where bundles of tree stems were lashed together with cords made from vegetal material. In Locus 8, vegetal cords are visible surrounding the bundles of tree stems.
 |
Locus 8 showing waddle architecture or bundles of tree stems wrapped in vegetal material. |
In other loci at the Ararat prehistoric site, the vegetal cords are fully visible and made of flaxen, a species of the genus Linum.
 |
Flaxen cords in Locus 2, Area A, Ararat. |
 |
Linum cords in Area C, Ararat. |
This ancient building technique is also found at other archaeological sites from the Late Epipaleolithic (13,100-9,600 BC) and Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (9,600-8,500 BC) periods. Evidence for waddle architecture is found in archaeological contexts in the Republic of Turkey, along the southeastern coast at Fikirtepe, Pendik, İstanbul Yenikapı, and Aktopraklık. These structures represent round or oval wattle-and-daub huts, with semi-sunken floors, dating to 6,450-6,100 BC (Özdoğan and Başgelen, 2007).
Other waddle structures are found at Shillourokambos in southern Cyprus dating to 8,200 BC (Guilaine and Briois, 2001); Çatal Höyük with contexts dating to 7,500 BC (Hodder, 2003); at at Hallan Çemi with radiocarbon dates ca. 9,000 BC (Rosenberg et al.). At Çayönü, archaeologist found horizontal bands of waddle, which is similar to Locus 8 at the Ararat prehistoric site where three bands of waddle bundles are placed on top of each other (Braidwood 1981, Schirmer 1988).
d. Preservation is Too Good.
Others argue that the preservation at the Mount Ararat prehistoric site is too good and that is why it does not exist.
My response: No.
Many people are familiar with the baby woolly mammoth found in 1977 in the Kolyma River, Siberia, or the hunter recovered in 1991 in the Schnalstal glacier in the Ötztal Alps. These are wonderful examples of the preservation of organic materials in ice, at high elevations, or both.
 |
Mammoth carcass found in Siberia. |
 |
| Tools of organic material found in the Ötztal Alps. |
The Ararat archaeological features show excellent preservation because these contexts are also at high elevations, between 3,000 and 4,700 meters above sea-level, preserved under multiple layers of rocks and ice, in lower oxygenated air.
4. The haters. This group comprises David Liang and Andy Wong. Liang was a nuclear energy scientist several decades ago, with no experience in archaeology. Wong or “HowTingDog” is a failed PhD student, who received a terminal Master’s degree. [If you drop out of a PhD program, the department will usually give you a Master’s degree for trying and failing.]
They have translated all the criticisms against the Ararat
prehistoric site, by Caucasian fraudsters and cult leaders, into Chinese.
My response: Stop hating.
The individuals at NAMI and TME found a really important archaeological site—something very special to our knowledge of human prehistory.
The individuals at NAMI and TME found a really important archaeological site—something very special to our knowledge of human prehistory.
Israel Finkelstein, a notable secular archaeologist has
a great quote that behind every biblical legend is a sand grain of truth. Here, behind the biblical legend of Noah's ark is the reality of a prehistoric archaeological site on Mount Ararat.
David and Andy, what is worse is that you helped raise money from the Chinese community for a complete scam--the Price-Sahin-Beam Noah's ark fraud.
I hope one day the Chinese government and other Chinese individuals, both religious and secular, will reward the members of NAMI and TME for contributing to the scientific discourse of human
prehistory.
Final Comments
Most people do not realize the criminality, bias, or hatred of the critics trying to defame the prehistoric site on Mount Ararat.
Archaeological theories are based on facts and
evidence and not on beliefs. The archaeological sites on Mount Ararat are
remarkable discoveries and require intensive research and conservation
efforts.
Please do whatever you can to support the protection, preservation, and continued research at these important archaeological locales on Mount Ararat.
Please do whatever you can to support the protection, preservation, and continued research at these important archaeological locales on Mount Ararat.
