"Andis Kaulins is a nutter."
I am revising this to say that Kaulins is not nuts, he is a very clever man who spends so much time blogging that it seems unlikely that he has time to conduct actual archeological research. Be sure to read his threatening reply to my review. True enough, I only skimmed through this book, but why would I want to read the work of a guy who spends so much time bad-mouthing credentialed scientists? A scientist would not threaten people who merely quoted a few of his controversial ideas. His scholarship has been criticized by Eric C. Cline (From Eden to Exile,) and researchers at the University of Chicago: [...] Kaulins may have a few valid ideas about depictions of astronomy by ancient man and the importance of the Baltic languages, but they're getting lost in his shrill denunciations of mainstream academia. Read his bio, his own academic background is in law, not linguistics or archaeology.
From his Lexline journal:
"I am still working on my formal write-up of my Gobekli Tepe decipherment which will show that Göbekli Tepe is astronomical in nature and oriented to the stars ca. 3800 B.C.
I conclude that this location near Urfa is where the Hebrew Calendar began. Gobekli Tepe is only 12 kilometers (about 7.5 miles) from Urfa (currently called Sanliurfa or Edessa), the legendary birthplace of the Biblical Abraham, and only 38 kilometers (23.75 miles) from his later residence at Haran. (see Am Anfang war Anatolien)
I initially dated the installation of the standing stones by what I have deciphered to be the relief depiction of the appearance of Halley's Comet on one of the stones, which by its location on that stone can only be ca. 3800 B.C."
"My interpretations of Stonehenge by astronomy date the large megaliths at Stonehenge to 1749 BC."
"I have been able to decipher several of the Balkan Danube Scripts (ca. 4000-3000 BC) from Transylvania (Romania), Karanovo (Bulgaria) and from Thracian Greece as astronomy. In addition, I have been able to decipher the Djer wooden and ivory tablets from Abydos and Saqqara (ca. 3000 BC) - also as astronomy. In my view, this resolves the question of the origin of Pharaonic writing - it derives from what are today called the Danube Scripts, whatever their provenance may be."
"The identity of Tutankhamun can be explained as follows:
In my opinion, the evidence is incontrovertible that King Saul = Echnaton (Akhenaten), King David = Sethos and King Solomon = Ramses II with Shishak = Ramses III.
Accordingly, Tutankhamun can only be ATON, i.e. JON-ATHON ("young Aton, young Adonis, "Jaun-(IE)donis"), one of the sons of Saul in the Bible. Saul was Echn-ATON viz. Akhen-ATEN ("old Aton", old Adonis, "Vec-(IE)Donis"). The other brother was Semenchkare, Biblical Ish-Boshet, who served a short time as Pharaoh before being executed."
So there you have it- you decide, based on his own words, about the quality of his scholarship. Needless to say, he doesn't accept carbon dating. There's also a strong streak of "the Europeans/Hebrews did it first" in his theories. (From his correspondence: "I really do think that the Jews originally were what the Lithuanians now call the GUDDA, i.e. "White-Russians"." )
See also: Megaliths, Man and the Cosmos, Implications for both Archaeology and Pseudoarchaeology by Chelsee Arbour, May 31, 2007 and The Skeptic 2000 Vol 20. No. 1, in which Mark Newbrook, PhD, refers to Kaulins as a "fringe historical linguist."