Ancient Astronomy in Germany

[The Curtmudgeon]

Ancient star map found in Germany suggests that astronomy was known to Bronze Age Europeans (prior to this, only Egyptians of that time period were known to have studied the stars).

The (wish there was a picture of it, though) Curtmudgeon

[Jigsaw]

Well, don't make yourself crazy over it--for one thing, we have only the archaeologists' word for it that it was a [air quotes] "Star Chart", or that it depicts "the sun, the moon, a star formation and a ship."

Remember Erich Von Daniken? The "astronaut"?

http://users2.fdn.com/~latinojx/arti...que/IMAGE3.jpg

Take a look at the Gundestrup Cauldron (yeah, I know it's Iron Age, but still...) If you don't know what you're looking at, man, is it ever weird. Hey, I could see "star charts" and "ships" in it, if I tried.

http://www.unc.edu/courses/art111/ce.../kauldron.html

[aurorae]

On 2002-03-06 21:33, Jigsaw wrote:
Well, don't make yourself crazy over it--for one thing, we have only the archaeologists' word for it that it was a [air quotes] "Star Chart", or that it depicts "the sun, the moon, a star formation and a ship."

Remember Erich Von Daniken? The "astronaut"?

There's quite a difference. The latter is an extreme claim, requiring exceptional proof.

It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to create a simple star chart. It only requires the ability to carve or somehow mark an object, and the ability to look at the night sky. Humans have had those abilities for a really long time.

I don't recall, but isn't Stonehenge older than this? That would have required a lot more sophistication.

[Jigsaw]

I wasn't saying that Bronze Age peoples didn't have the knowledge to make a star chart--I was saying that just because these two guys announced it was a star chart doesn't make it so.

What I was saying was, anybody could look at a pattern of dots and announce, "That's a star chart", but before it could be officially labeled a "star chart", it would have to be put in a cultural context. We would have to ask, "Are there other artifacts and artwork from the same era that have similar markings, and are they generally acknowledged to be 'star charts'?"

That's what I meant about the Erich Von Daniken "astronaut", because while HE might have announced that the figure on the Palenque slab depicted an ancient astronaut seated in his rocket ship, serious Mayan experts and archaeologists knew perfectly well what all the symbolism represented, and it certainly wasn't an astronaut and a rocket ship.

So I'm saying that almost certainly there are archaeologists somewhere who could look at the markings, if any, and know exactly what they mean, and it probably isn't a "star chart".




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jigsaw on 2002-03-07 20:29 ]</font>

[The Curtmudgeon]

On 2002-03-06 21:33, Jigsaw wrote:
Well, don't make yourself crazy over it--for one thing, we have only the archaeologists' word for it that it was a [air quotes] "Star Chart", or that it depicts "the sun, the moon, a star formation and a ship."

As a general rule, it's a pretty good idea not to assume that an entire branch of science is corrupt. Archaeologists are pretty good at reporting exactly what they see. It's a critical necessity since dating finds is generally dependant on identifying both similarities and differences from other finds which have already been dated.

Remember Erich Von Daniken? The "astronaut"?

What has that to do with archaeology? Von Daniken is sui generis, he isn't an archaelogist any more than he is an astronomer or a physicist. He simply grabs whatever little threads come to his attention, twists them to become something he can get rich on, and proceeds to flog them on the marketplace.

Take a look at the Gundestrup Cauldron (yeah, I know it's Iron Age, but still...) If you don't know what you're looking at, man, is it ever weird. Hey, I could see "star charts" and "ships" in it, if I tried.

Yes, but you're not an archaeologist, either, I would guess. Archaeologists involved with the Gundestrup Cauldron or similar objects describe them exactly as they appear. Some of them might then also give interpretations that may or may not be correct, but accredited archaeologists don't say "The Cauldron is a representation of ...", they say "The artwork on the Cauldron might represent ..." and so forth. (Actually, every discussion of Gundestrup that I've ever read is quite clear that the figures are mythological; I've never seen any attempt to connect it to star maps or anything physical.) Archaeologists are the ones most aware that we cannot read the minds of people several centuries or millenia in the past.

The (only an armchair archaeologist, but I've been one for 30+ years) Curtmudgeon

[The Curtmudgeon]

On 2002-03-07 20:24, Jigsaw wrote:
I wasn't saying that Bronze Age peoples didn't have the knowledge to make a star chart--I was saying that just because these two guys announced it was a star chart doesn't make it so.

What I was saying was, anybody could look at a pattern of dots and announce, "That's a star chart", but before it could be officially labeled a "star chart", it would have to be put in a cultural context.

Actually, no. If I found an ancient piece of bronze with a series of markings that clearly duplicated the relative placement of the brightest stars I don't need a cultural context to declare it a star map. I need a cultural context to declare whose star map it was, or to determine when it was made, or whether it was functional in some way or merely decorative. But if I find an object with markings that clearly duplicate Orion's brightest stars, or Ursa Major's or Leo's or the brightest circumpolar stars, it's a star map even if it's completely out of context.

So I'm saying that almost certainly there are archaeologists somewhere who could look at the markings, if any, and know exactly what they mean, and it probably isn't a "star chart".

Why assume that a German state archaeologist would make something up like this? This is his livelihood, his day-to-day work. Would you say, "Just because Phil Plait says something about astronomy on his web site, there are probably astronomers (implying Phil isn't one) somewhere that could tell us the real truth about it"? I think that, given Herr Meller's credentials, unless you can show that he's completely incompetent to do his job you might should maybe assume that perhaps he knows what he's talking about.

The (why are you so eager for it not to be a star map?) Curtmudgeon

[The Curtmudgeon]

On 2002-03-07 10:44, aurorae wrote:
I don't recall, but isn't Stonehenge older than this? That would have required a lot more sophistication.

The problem there is that it's still being argued exactly what Stonehenge was built and used for. Yes, there are lots of popular accounts of how accurately various alignments of its stones point to solar, lunar and even stellar locations, but given how much of a stretch some of those alignments are it's hard to prove that it was an ancient observatory. There are also good reasons to believe that it might have been an outdoor "temple" or monument for a fallen king (there is a central burial, but it still isn't proven which came first, was Stonehenge built around the grave or was the grave a later intrusive burial?). And even if the main solar alignments are valid and intentional, it's a bit of a jump from watching the sun's annual round (necessary for agriculture) to watching the stars.

An actual star map, on the other hand, would be conclusive proof of ancient astronomy in Europe, rather than conjectural. (And don't take the prior paragraph to mean that I don't believe Stonehenge had astronomical purposes--I'm fairly convinced of at least the major solar alignments, although I do believe it was more than just an observatory. I'm simply pointing out that what we know about Stonehenge is actually pretty damn little, compared to what we believe to be the case.)

The (a map in the hand is worth two in the henge) Curtmudgeon

[aurorae]

On 2002-03-08 13:43, The Curtmudgeon wrote:
And even if the main solar alignments are valid and intentional, it's a bit of a jump from watching the sun's annual round (necessary for agriculture) to watching the stars.

Not much of a jump. Anyone who could position huge stones and poles to match various alignments could probably figure out how to scratch a few stars on a bowl.

[Jigsaw]

It's not that I'm "anxious for it not to be a star map"--it's just that I also spend a lot of time at various Urban Legend and hoax debunking websites, Snopes, James Randi, Skeptic's Dictionary, etc., and I'm unfortunately hardwired for it to be, not necessarily a hoax, but a case of scientists jumping to a conclusion in order to release a press statement before anybody else, in order to get publicity, in order to keep the funding.

I will also point out that, in the same way that "one swallow doth not a summer make", one press release doth not a scientific breakthrough make. I wasn't able to find it anywhere else on the Web. If it truly were an astonishing find, I'd think it would be more widely posted.

I'm a dreadful cynic, I know.

Why are YOU so anxious for it to BE a star chart? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

I am perfectly aware that Erich Von Daniken isn't an archaeologist. The point I am attempting to make is that anybody, with or without a Ph.D., can pick up an artifact, assign a meaning to it, hold a press conference (or write a book) and announce, "This artifact means such-and-such", and it's all too likely that the real experts, the ones who know perfectly well that the artifact does not mean such-and-such, aren't nearly as well connected to the Media, and thus don't get any screen time to tell the world that the guy who had the press conference is 100% dead wrong.

So, ultimately, all I'm saying is, I'm personally going to wait until I hear independent confirmation that this thing does in fact have a "star chart" and a picture of a ship on it before I start getting excited about the state of astronomical knowledge in Bronze Age Europe.

And yes, I'm aware that Bronze Age people were perfectly capable of building something like Stonehenge's astronomical "calculator".