THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE KARAZHARTAS PROTO-MAUSOLEUM: A complex, Late Bronze Age, six-step, two-axis, quasi-pyramid, intendedly oriented platform cum a 32-monolith enclosure monument in Kazakhstan Dimitrios S. Dendrinos, PhD Emeritus Professor, School of Architecture and Urban Planning, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA In Residence at: Ormond Beach, Florida, USA Contact: CBF-JF@EARTHLINK.NET April 3, 2024 Figure 1. The Karazhartas proto-mausoleum at the Karaganda Region of Kazakhstan. A bird’s eye view of the complex monumental structure that consists of a six-step pointy pyramid, with a primary and a secondary axis, to which 32 flat megalithic monolithic slabs are attached at the ground level base; South in this photo is up. Credit to Dr. Aibar Kassenali for the photograph (cropped by the paper’s author); source of the above image: https://archaeologymag.com/2023/11/pyramid-from-the-scythian-saka-period-in-kazakhstan/#comment-1630 Map 1. The location of the so-called “Karazhartas Mausoleum”, dated by the monument’s excavation team to the Scythian-Saka period, within the homonymous Necropolis is shown above, as obtained from a Google Earth map. North is straight up. The complex monument, shaped as a proto-Mausoleum in a quasi-pyramidal form, is an intermediate specimen between a six-step pyramid and a five-step elevated platform with a cuboid situated on top of it. The complex structure is coupled with an attached set of 32 megalithic monoliths (standing upright flat stones, slabs) spread throughout its approximately square perimeter. The monument is part of an ensemble of monuments, some still either under excavation, others still to be excavated (as of this paper’s writing). The dimensions of the approximately square, six-step, quasi-pyramid, pointy (as it has a primary and secondary axis) structure at its ground level, is as follows: about fourteen meters (the slightly uneven South-Eastern and South-Western sides), and 13.5 meters (the, again, slightly uneven North-Eastern and North-Western sides); these approximate measurements are obtainable by the Googler Earth map, partly confirming the measurements as reported by the archeological team. However, this distinction among sides and primary and secondary axes, as well as the structure’s main orientation, are not reported by the archeological team, but detected by this author. In deriving the aforementioned measurements, the monument’s size was measured at the points where the dark dots in the above map are shown, standing for the short shadows cast by the monoliths (slabs) attached to the quasi-pyramid’s ground level perimeter. The quasi-pyramid structure sports a total height of about three meters, partly justifying the term “quasi pyramid” to describe its proto-mausoleum form. A full description of the quasi-pyramid’s structure, morphology and orientation are offered in the main text. The above map was obtained by the author from Google Earth, on March 30, 2024. Figure 2. The Late Bronze Age, Andronovo Period (circa 1400 BC – 1100 BC), “Karazhartas Mausoleum” is a quasi-pyramid, or a relatively short in height, approximately square, six-step platform, just about three-meter tall; the masonry monumental structure is shown above as restored, with its secondary platform visible at the left-hand side at the base’s fourth level. The monument’s 32 slabs and their distinct shadows are shown, surrounding the perimeter of the monument at ground level. Built on a riverbank, it was used as the burial ground for the then ruler and elite class members of the Begazy-Dandybai culture, see refs. [3], [4]. Source of above photograph and credit to: https://abai.institute/eng/post/karazhartas-325/ Figure 3. A view of the “Karazhartas Mausoleum” in 2018, with the megalithic, monolithic orthostats (the flat slabs) that surround the ground level base of the monument, leaning against the step-pyramidal structure, before restoration of the monument by the archeological team in charge of the excavation. In total, there are about 32 (2^5) slabs. The view is from the NW corner. Source of the photograph and credit to: By Kaiyr - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=71543773 Abstract The paper presents a description of the complex Architecture of what is currently and conventionally referred to as the “Karazhartas Mausoleum”, located in Kazakhstan. Main findings of the paper include the following: (a) there are three main components to the complex, proto-mausoleum monumental structure; (b) two of them form a five-level, with differing widths and slightly uneven heights, base that supports the quasi-pyramid’s main structure on top; (c) the proto-mausoleum’s primary platform contains a minor, secondary platform, located at the North-Eastern side of the main structure; (d) the monument’s entire quasi-pyramid platform is pointy, i.e., it contains a primary and a secondary axis, intersecting close to but not exactly at 90°; (e) the primary axis has a North-West towards the South-East orientation, whereas the secondary axis has a North-East towards a South-West orientation; (f) to the primary (main) platform, 32 flat monolithic slabs of various, irregular but roughly orthogonal, shapes are attached at the monument’s ground level; (g) the entire structure is framed, at ground level, by an almost perfect square, containing a similar to the monument’s slab composition, and forming an almost perfectly horizontal, flat surface. The architect must be able to summarize a structure’s story, succinctly and with one liner: the story of this extraordinary Kazakhstani megalithic, monumental structure is that ‘it stands as a symphony to the powers of number “2”, and to be exact, a play on number “4”’. These numbers are repeatedly encountered in the monument’s description. One might suggest that they constitute the monument’s modular structure. The Architecture of the Karazhartas Mausoleum Approximate location: The Late Bronze Age, c. 1400 BC, (see ref. [1]), irregular but ΙΣΟ-ΥΨΗΣ ashlar, thin layer masonry construction, monument, currently referred to as the “Karazhartas Mausoleum”, is located in the Shet District of the Karaganda Region, Kazakhstan. From Google Earth map, one obtains that the very center of the Mausoleum is found approximately at coordinates: 49° 08’ 08.49” N, 73° 54’ 57.53” E. Brief description: The monument has the general form and appearance of a square, six-step, pyramid morphology. However, a close visual inspection of the monument reveals a far more complex structure. Overall, the form must be described as a “quasi-pyramid”, six-step structure; in effect, it is a five-step pyramidal base, supporting on top its main monumental quasi, 3-dimensional, orthogonal (cuboid), body; see for a more detailed description and justification for the term “quasi-pyramid” a sub-section below. Approximate dimensions of the monument, are as follows: two of the monument’s sides (the South-Eastern and South-Western) are about fourteen meters long at its ground level; whereas, the other two sides (North-Eastern and North-Western) are about 13.50 meters long at ground level. These differentials may entail, from an architectural standpoint, different objectives; one might be to offer a clear overall orientation of the structure, from North, North-West to South, South-East, i.e., the orientation of its primary axis; another objective could be to enhance or to counter the perspective, depending on the ground-level viewpoint where the observer stands. All of the above-mentioned measurements are based on estimates derived from the announced by the archeological team lengths, found in refs. [1] and [2]; as well as from estimates obtained by this author directly from the Google Earth map, see Map 1, and from the available photographs of the monument. The structure’s total height, at the quasi-pyramid’s top (sixth) level, is estimated at about three meters, see refs. [1], [2]. These approximate dimensions would imply that each of the approximately square, quasi-pyramid’s side is about four and one-half times its height. It is important to note that the six-step quasi-pyramid, masonry, monumental structure is located within a monumentally rich ensemble, the full extent of which is still to be excavated, evaluated and reported by the archeological team in charge of the excavation. Hence, the description as reported by this author, and in reference to the monument’s orientation must be taken within that broader archeological context, and historical milieu, since it must be assumed that the entire archeological site was developed in stages over the millennia since first settled and built in the 14th century BC. For an introduction to this entire monumental ensemble and its associated settlements, see also ref. [4]. Orientation: A key aspect of the monument, the proto-mausoleum at hand, is not only its peculiar overall shape (the monument being not an exact square pyramid but instead a five-step platform supporting the main three-dimensional masonry orthogonal cuboid structure on top), but also its orientation. From Map 1, in combination with Figure 1, it is deduced that the diagonals of the Mausoleum’s approximate square base are off the North-South and East-West axes by certain angles, of course not identical due to the quasi-pyramid’s side length differentials. The North North-Western to South South-Eastern diagonal axis (the monument’s main axis and orientation) is at about -15° off the due North-South axis; whereas, the North North-Eastern to South South-Western diagonal axis (the monument’s minor axis) is at about -12.5° off the due East-West axis. Thus, the angle formed by the two intersecting axes, at the point of intersection, which is not their half point, is about 92.5°. Undoubtedly, these deviations from both, the due N-S and due E-W, axes embedded into the proto-mausoleum structure must be related to either construction imperfections, or due to relationships with other pre-existing monuments within the local monumental ensemble, and their phased-in timing in construction; as well as to, possibly local, astronomical alignments, alignments which could harbor ceremonial aspects embedded into the monument. Rough historical context: The monument, according to the archeological team in charge of the excavations there, was constructed in the 14th century BC. That is an important period for Eurasia: it is the Era that saw the end of the Minoans and the rise of the Early Mycenaeans in the Greek Peninsula; as well as it is the Akhenaten Era, of the 18th Dynasty, the New Kingdom Period of Ancient Egypt. It is notable that the Step Pyramid at Saqqara, the so-called Djoser Pyramid, the first pyramid to be built circa 27th century BC, is also a six-step pyramid. It is also worth reporting that the irregular ashlar construction of the monument bears similarities with the construction techniques found in Minoan Crete, see ref. [5], PN6.1, Zominthos; ashlar Architecture involving limestone slabs is also encountered in a much earlier archeological site, at the Orkneys, British Isles, for instance at Skara Brae, see also ref. [5]. In effect, erection of this monument in Kazakhstan coincides with some drastic and consequential transitions in Eurasian post-Neolithic, Middle Age of Metals (Late Bronze and Early Iron Age) Periods. To place this monument in a Neolithic to Bronze Age context, the reader is directed for more elaboration and material to ref. [5]. To that end, not much more will be added here. Architectonic integration: Of extreme interest is that, at this archeological site, two distinct Neolithic – Bronze Age types of monuments were combined: a step-pyramid (platform) and a set of standing megalithic monoliths. Whether that combination was the original vision of the architect in designing the monument (proto-mausoleum) is not clear; and one might incline towards the viewpoint that it was not. That, at some later date, and after the six-step platform (the proto-mausoleum) was completed, then the orthostats were added to the six-step pyramidal structure; for sure, the monoliths were chosen as to their dressing and geological composition so that they conformed and architectonically integrated with the original proto-mausoleum type monument. What is also not clear is whether all 32 vertical slabs were added once, or in stages over a period of decades or even centuries. The proto-mausoleum structure: a five-step, quasi-pyramidal, masonry base supporting on top of it the main masonry orthogonal block (the cuboid), in combination formed a six-step quasi-pyramidal proto-mausoleum structure (with a twist, as it will be elaborated shortly) that is surrounded, at its approximately square-perimeter ground-level base, by a set of 32 megalithic monoliths in the form of flat standing stones (slabs, monoliths, orthostats). There are either seven, eight or nine standing monoliths at each of the monument’s four sides, located where the elevated burial site-platform meets the ground level (and where, later, tombs were added). The Mausoleum’s construction, according to the archeologists responsible for the excavation and based on reported by them Carbon-14 evidence, lasted over a two-century period (from c 1400 BC to 1200 BC), ref. [1]. It was intended as a burial ground for the then ruler; other members of the social elite were also buried at the perimeter of the pyramid, where the standing stones (slabs) were inserted. Approximate measurements of the six steps: All measurements reported here have been deduced by the author on the basis of those announced by the archeologists involved in the excavation, the references supplied, and personal estimations based on the available photographic material and Google Earth map. At the outset, and to be underlined, in this approximate square pyramidal proto-mausoleum structure no two sides at any level, are identical. Hence, no angle at any level is 90°. Why it is so will be addressed in a later subsection. Taking the North-Eastern side of the monument to be, at the ground level, approximately fourteen meters in length (as it was reported by the archeological team in ref. [1]), then the South-Eastern side (the longest) is estimated by this author to be about 14.25 meters long; the North-Eastern side is approximately 14.00 meters (as reported by the archeological team); the South-Western side is about 13.75 meters (as estimated by this author); and finally, the North-Western side is about 13.50 meters (as reported by the archeological team). Measuring the two diagonals of the irregular tetrahedron, one obtains (as estimated by this author from Google Earth and Figure 1) that the longest diagonal and the monument’s main axis of orientation (from the North North-West to the South South-East) is about 19.85 meters in length; while the secondary axis, the shortest diagonal, that pointing from North North-East to South South-West, is about 19.05 meters long. This anomaly in the two axes’ lengths can not be a random incident; it must have structural reasons to be there, and the apparently intended pointing nature of the monument towards the South South-East must have been an integral part of the monument’s design. However, the target of that orientation still remains to be determined. Although the existence by intent of a major and a minor axis in the monument’s structure can be attributed to architectonic design, the fact that all four sides, at all six levels of the step-pyramidal structure, are different constitutes an anomaly. Whereas, they could form regular pairs, so that their intersecting diagonals would form 90° angles and they would intersect at half points. However, this is not the case. Some reasons are offered in a later subsection. On the approximate measurements (depths and heights) of the five steps that form the base, and in effect the platform on which the main body (the cuboid) of the proto-mausoleum monument stands, the narrative goes as follows (all estimated by this author, conforming with and accounting for the total height of the monument, about three meters, as reported by the archeological team, see ref. [1]): It is estimated that the heights of the six platforms constituting the six layers (levels) are in proportion as follows, from the ground up: 2:1:1:1:1:3, i.e., each unit is approximately .333… meters, so that the first level is about 66.6 cm above the ground, the second, third, fourth and fifth levels are each about 33.3 cm in height, and the sixth level, the top of the cuboid (the main component of the proto-mausoleum, occupying its very top and highlighting its presence) has a height of about 99.9 centimeters (i.e., about one meter). Regarding the depths at each level of the quasi-pyramid’s five steps, matters are quite difficult to deal with from a distance, and direct measurements in situ are necessary to obtain their exact positions and widths. Very rough averages can be obtained by online evidence, for all four levels of the five-step base. The cuboid’s dimensions are a bit easier to obtain with some degree of confidence. The final step of the quasi-pyramidal in shape, proto-mausoleum structure are approximately as follows: the length of each side is about one third the length of the corresponding monument’s side. The only thing one can say with some degree of confidence regarding the rest (first, second, third, fourth and fifth levels) is that the first (above ground) level seems to be the narrowest of all; whereas the third seems to be the widest of them. The secondary platform (podium): An interesting feature of the monument, the “twist” referred to earlier in the text, is indicative of the monument’s additional ceremonial (along with the funerary) function. The podium is a smaller scale platform; thus, we are encountering the “platform within a platform” architectonic composition at this point. The central horizontal axis of the podium is situated almost at mid-point of the North-Eastern side of the quasi-pyramid’s fourth from the ground level. The protruding podium extends in length almost reaching the edge of the quasi-pyramid’s second level (step), see Figures 1 and 2. Hence, the length of this podium (secondary platform, contained within the primary platform of the five-step quasi-pyramid base) is equal to the depth of the second plus the third steps; the length of this podium is estimated by this author to be about half the length of the cuboid’s North-Western side, i.e., about 1/6 of the monument’s North-Western base at the ground level (or about 2.25 meters). Its width is estimated by this author to be about one tenth of the monument’s Noth-Eastern side’s length at the ground level, or about 1.40 meters. Its height is at the height of the five-step quasi-pyramid’s fourth level, i.e., about 1.66 meters above ground level, slightly below the top of the vertical orthostats located at the monument’s approximately square perimeter and at ground level. The 32 (2^5) megalithic monoliths enclosure: From the Google Earth map in Map 1, and the photograph in Figure 2, which is taken from a North-Western viewpoint facing on the other end the South-Eastern side of the monument, with the North-Eastern side at left, and the South-Western side at right, one can observe the following: there are seven erected megalithic monoliths on the North-Western side; nine orthostats on the North-Eastern side; eight standing stones on the South-Western side; and from Figure 1, eight slabs on the South-Eastern side. That is a total of 32 [i.e., the fifth power of number 2] erected megalithic monoliths around the monument altogether, all assumed to be there currently standing, under the reconstruction by the archeological team of the monument, following excavations. Morphologically, the raised stones are of some interest. None of the stones is repeated in shape or size (width, length, thickness, edges’ shapes and top’s angle, some being pointing upwards whereas others are flat on top), although, it must be noted, the monoliths have an approximately equal height, close to about two meters. Distances among them vary as well at each of the four sides of the pyramidal structure’s perimeter. The average distance between the orthostats’ center is about two meters (same as their average height). The monoliths’ various shapes share commonalities with other Eurasian enclosed circle type (stone, monolithic) Neolithic monuments. A feature of special interest is the casting of the monolith’s shadows upon the six-step quasi-pyramidal structure. Issues of shadow casting monoliths, a complex topic but critical in the examination of the role that standing stones play for Neolithic and Metals’ Age monuments, was addressed by this author in a number of papers, see for example refs. [6], [7]. Notable is a ring of low-lying shallow stones, delineating the monument’s perimeter (including the area taken by the standing slabs and the tombs they contain underground beneath them). Beyond that delineation, the monument is framed as follows. The monument’s ground level framing: As it can be directly seen from Figure 1, as well as in Map 1, the grounds around the six-step, quasi-pyramid, proto-mausoleum, structure is framed by an almost perfect square, which consists of an almost perfectly leveled, slab-containing masonry (identical to the monument’s stonework, as well as the orthostats surrounding it), horizontal outline. It is not clear whether this framing was in place already, or it is an added feature to the monument upon restoration work undertaken by the archeological team. Dimensions of this paved flat outline are as follows, offered here for informational purposes: the paved with slabs square commences at a distance of about fourteen meters from the very center point of the monument’s site plan, and it thus has an interior size of eighteen meters; its exterior is at a distance of 21 meters from the core of the monument’s site plan. Thus, it has a thickness of a meter and one half, perimetrically. There is a walk-in entry point to the monument’s site, at the monument’s South-Western side. On the monument’s morphology, Engineering Statics and its anomaly: Why this specific morphology there and then? One must ask, always, when confronted with any old or new architectonic structure: why does this structure have the dimensions (size and form) it has, and not any other set of marginally or significantly different dimensions (size and form). A set of similar questions must be always asked in regards to the orientation of the structure, and its location, i.e., its proximity to other monumental structures in its close and not so close vicinity, its preexisting ecology, its micro and macro-Topography. Certainly, the Economics and Engineering involved must have acted as constraints: the volume of masonry to be used in the monument, and associated costs of extraction and transport as well as processing, must have something to do with the Economics-related factors in the decision-making process involved in the design of the Mausoleum. On the Engineering front, was the weight of the masonry construction not too much for the ground, the monument stood on, to support it, and not cave in? However, was that the only overriding set of constraints? What were the objectives to be attained by assembling and processing whatever was needed (and available) in terms of volume of stones (slabs and other filing matter)? One must be able to address and suggest alternative hypotheses on such queries. Since masonry construction was involved, issues of durability (creating and building an everlasting monumental structure) must have been the main goal of the monument’s designer and sponsor (the individual who procured and financed, as well as maybe oversaw and managed the monument’s construction). The volume of masonry, and the associated economic and engineering considerations must have come in secondarily; primarily, there could be some urgency in constructing the monument, to be used as a burial ground; and possibly the imperfection (the anomaly discussed earlier) might have been the result in failing to construct a perfectly square pyramid structure, if the tomb(s) was (were) built in a hurry. The volume of the cuboid that sits on top and at the middle of the five-level quasi-pyramidal base, is approximately [(14:3)^2] or about 21.75 m^3. From an Engineering Statics viewpoint, that is where (at the very center) this maximum vertical force applies. Assuming that the slabs used to construct the monument (its base as well as the rectangular prism) are of limestone, and that the cubic meter of limestone is about 2,500 Kilograms in weight, the cuboid alone if completely filled weighs about 54,375 kilograms. A major consideration determining the size of this masonry step pyramidal base, and hence the overall shape and size of the monument (that would also involve its ability to absorb the generated lateral forces as well), is the approximately rectangular prism’s weight, and the ability of the ground (given that it is located on a riverbank) to support not only this cuboid’s weight, but the weight of the base it sits on as well. In concluding the analysis of the Engineering aspect of the step-pyramidal monument, it is noted that seemingly, and by Late Bronze Age, knowledge involving the Statics of pyramid construction had migrated from Egypt and Mesopotamia to Kazakhstan. The only element missing in that migration of architectonic style is corbelling, see ref. [5]. In ref. [4], it is mentioned that about 20 “megalithic mausolea” exist of the Begazy-Dandybai culture, one of them (the “Karazhartas Mausoleum”) presented here. Some unspecified qualitative similarities are mentioned in ref. [4] to be present among all twenty of them. The “Karazhartas Mausoleum” anomaly discussed in prior sub-sections, i.e., the peculiarity encountered in the quasi-pyramid’s sides having different lengths (not only at ground level, but at all six levels), is an attribute that can be detected in all photographs and the Google Earth map, and can’t be attributed to photographic distortion. This anomaly is notable. Specifically, and as it has been pointed out repeatedly in the text, the four sides differ in measurement of their lengths, varying from an estimated minimum of approximately 13.5 meters to a maximum of about 14.25 meters at ground level. This anomaly could also be due to the shortage of material. But there are other possible explanations, perspective (as already mentioned) being one of them. Construction methods’ imperfections, given the period of construction for that region of Eurasia, could also be the cause for these sides’ measurement differences (anomaly). A Note on the carbon-14 evidence The author has been very skeptical about the use of carbon-14 evidence in certain Anatolian Neolithic sites, as for example that of Gobekli Tepe, see for instance the set of papers cited in ref. [8]. The main issue in that skepticism is the manner in which the carbon bearing evidence used to apply the carbon-14 technique entailed cherry-picking specimens. The lack of plentiful eligible specimens from which a statistical sampling ought to have been extracted and dating tested for, renders carbon-14 findings at least open to questioning their veracity and doubt the confidence level one can place on these findings. It is hoped, and expected, due to the ample carbon-bearing specimens which must be abundant in the case of the “Karazhartas Mausoleum”, given all the burial sites (tombs) within it, the required carbon-14 evidence must be there to sample from; consequently, the carbon-14 based conclusions derived by the archeological team responsible for the excavations there, namely that this is a Late Bronze Age monumental structure, must be accepted with ease. Corroborative evidence from the Architecture standpoint, as discussed in this paper, offers support to the 14th century BC dating of the quasi-pyramidal proto-mausoleum, at the Shet District of the Scythian-Saka Late Bronze Age archeological site, which falls within the Andronovo Period, at the Karaganda Region’s Karazhartas Necropolis of Kazakhstan. Conclusions A primary hypothesis was put forward, in the context of ref. [5], regarding the architectonic design of this interesting monument, the structure currently referred to as the “Karazhartas Mausoleum” in Kazakhstan: that this structure is a proto-mausoleum, consisting of a five-step, quasi-pyramidal in form, shaped as an elevated in steps platform base, on which the main body of the proto-mausoleum, a rectangular prism (a cuboid) was placed. Embedded in this structure a primary and a secondary axis of orientation were detected. In addition, an anomaly in the approximately squares forming the six-level, quasi-pyramidal monumental structure was discussed, and its causes elaborated. That anomaly it was suggested was inserted into the monument’s construction in order to identify two axes, a major axis of orientation and a minor one, embedded into the structure. A detailed description of the architectonic elements of the monument’s morphology, as well as its two axes and primary orientation were provided, together with approximate measurements and proportions. It was pointed out that one of the key features of this Late Bronze Age monument was the combination of two distinctly different Neolithic type Architectures: a set of standing megalithic monoliths (forming a stone circle) was integrally combined with a step-platform/pyramid structure. That combination was an innovative element in Bronze Age monumental design, and it played a key role in attracting this author’s attention. The one-liner, succinct recanting of the monument’s story is this: it is a symphony of the powers of number “2”, and specifically a play on number “4”. These powers are encountered throughout the monument’s presentation. A final remark is warranted at this concluding section of the paper: the manner in which the monument at the Karaganda Region of Kazakhstan is found standing today, is not the exact way that the monument stood during the Andronovo Period, when it underwent its construction, in phases, dynamics. It is only a replica, a reconstruction, an approximation to, but not the original monument. That original version of the monument is unknown to us (as is the case with all Neolithic and Metals’ Age architectonic structures, in their exact form and functions). Epistemological justification for this proposition is found in ref. [9]. References [1] https://archaeologymag.com/2023/11/pyramid-from-the-scythian-saka-period-in-kazakhstan/#comment-1630 [2] https://abai.institute/eng/post/karazhartas-325/ [3] https://www.academia.edu/69352579/2021_Bendezu_Sarmiento_The_first_nomads_in_Central_Asias_steppes_Kazakhstan_An_overview_of_major_socio_economic_changes_derived_from_funerary_practices_of_the_Bronze_and_Iron_Ages_2nd_1st_millennium_BCE_In_Nomad_lives_Fro [4] For a more extensive, albeit introductory, presentation of the monument and its cultural milieu, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begazy%E2%80%93Dandybai_culture [5] Dimitrios S. Dendrinos, October 9, 2021, “Quanta in Neolithic Architecture, Part II: from Monoliths to Corbelling and Pyramids”, academia.edu; the paper can be accessed here: https://www.academia.edu/56798993/QUANTA_IN_NEOLITHIC_ARCHITECTURE_PART_II_EVOLUTION_FROM_MONOLITHS_TO_CORBELLING_AND_PYRAMIDS [6] Dimitrios S. Dendrinos, January 24, 2017, “The Mathematics of Monoliths’ Shadows“, academia.edu; the paper can be accessed here: https://www.academia.edu/31101997/The_Mathematics_of_Monoliths_Shadows [7] Dimitrios S. Dendrinos, March 1, 2017, “On the Fuzzy Nature of Shadows“, academia.edu; the paper can be accessed here: https://www.academia.edu/31671102/ON_THE_FUZZY_NATURE_OF_SHADOWS [8] Dimitrios S. Dendrinos, July 1, 2021, “More on carbon-14 Evidence and Gobekli Tepe“, academia.edu; the paper can be accessed here: https://www.academia.edu/49493094/MORE_ON_CARBON_14_EVIDENCE_AND_GOBEKLI_TEPE [9] Dimitrios S. Dendrinos, April 15, 2019, “Towards a New Epistemology“, academia.edu; the paper can be accessed here: https://www.academia.edu/38814232/TOWARDS_A_NEW_EPISTEMOLOGY Copyright Statement ©Dimitrios S. Dendrinos The author, Dimitrios S. Dendrinos retains all copyrights, afforded by the Laws of the US government and all relevant international agencies, to the contents of this paper, with the exception of Figures 1, 2 and 3, to which copyrights are reserved for the sources cited in the text. No parts of this paper, or the paper as a whole, can be reproduced in any form, including any electronic means, without the explicit and written consent of and by the author, Dimitrios S. Dendrinos. 9