Archaeologica.org

Posted: **Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:02 pm**

Rene Descartes wrote:

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:41 pm Post subject:
I just finished watching a nice documentary on Arte Channel concerning the Nebra Disc ,an intriguing object which was found near Halle in Germany a few years ago which features amongst others a nice representation of the Plejades .It dates from about 1600 BC . Apparently it contains a lot of astronomical informations making it the first of its kind in history .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... rans.shtml .Halle is not too far from Bosnia after all ,well within trading distance of the period involved .Of course analysis of the disc made very clear it was manufactured near to the spot where it was discovered .But still a lesson that we should not dismiss fantastic claims too lightly . History is alive with fantastic discoveries .
Anybody having an ideawhy the Plejads were soimportant in so many different civilisations ?Perhaps it was just an easily recognizable constellation .Which tales and legends are associated with this starsystem ?
_________________
I think therefore I am
Back to top

Minimalist wrote:

Very interesting, Rene.

This, though, bothers me.

Quote:
The disc had been found in the same hole and had the same soil level as two swords. Swords of a very particular design. The idea was that the age of these swords and the disc could be fixed. By comparing them with similar objects that had been successfully carbon dated. So Meller examined the swords in minute detail, and then he compared those details with every known type of Bronze Age sword. Eventually he came across pictures of swords that looked exactly like those from the hoard, and the date was stunning.

Although they did hint at it later on there is far too great a tendency to rely on 'associated artifacts" when trying to date something. The worst example would be in grabbing a piece of charcoal for a C14 date and assuming that the fire dates the object. Thus, if a person built a fire near Stonehenge one cannot assume that the date of the fire is equivalent to the construction of the monument, as a rough example.

Here, the assumption that the person with the sword also made the disc is dubious. He could have been a warrior or pirate who simply stole the item and treasured it. The artifacts set the latest date for creation of the grave but who the hell knows when the disc was made?

Still, there are intriguing possibilities.
_________________
"God is the immemorial refuge of the incompetent, the helpless, the miserable. The

Posted: **Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:03 pm**

stan wrote:

Here is a large, very detailed photo of the Nebra disc:

http://www.archlsa.de/himmel/bilder/bil ... e_copy.jpg

It is certainly interesting. I notice,however, that the workmanship leaves something to be desired. Notice that on the left side, there is a place where the gold filling doesn't lineup with the "star" it represents.
On the right side, there appears to be a star UNDER the "82 deg." gold band.
Notice also that there is no marked center point on the disc, but that must be how the professor measured the 82 degrees. . If there were a center point, the ends of the gold band on the right don't point to it (like radii). I think that if the ancients who made this were measuring degrees, they would have been more careful. However, It has been pointed out that the megalithic stone works from about the same time which are supposed to be observatories or calendars were usually not dressed. I sometimes get a little annoyed when writers say that on the solstice certain things line up "precisely', because the rocks are sometimes rather shapeless and lumpy. Furthermore, 82 degrees is not 80 degrees.
Also notice that on the left side another gold band has been apparently torn away. THe professors don't address that. In fact,the whole thing was torn off something else, perhaps a table top or a wall, or maybe a shield.
I think the symbolism of the sun, moon, stars, and even the sun ship
may be right, though. Interesting that there are no animal figures.
Another thing to mull over is that there hasn't been anything else like this found from nearby in space or time. I would think that such a great discovery would have been emulated.
_________________

Posted: **Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:27 pm**

I know it's suppose to be important, but I am unimpressed by this artifact. BOHD

Posted: **Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:31 pm**

What do you think, Frank...
do you think it is bad art?
...or an artifact out of place?

Posted: **Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:58 pm**

I think it's worthy of some discussion in it's own thread. Thanks Stan.

Posted: **Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:47 am**

stan wrote:What do you think, Frank...
do you think it is bad art?
...or an artifact out of place?

I think I don't really care what it is. I don't know why, but every since I first heard of it and saw the picture I didn't understand what the big deal was. It's lousy art and as for the symbolism........I think it's mostly conjecture. I don't see what the big deal is. I read the article about it in Archaeology magazine and that was all I wanted to know about it. I'll stay off this thread, or the new one you create, since I have nothing to contribute. I don't see what else there is to discuss about it.

Posted: **Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:41 am**

I may not be the only blockhead here that has never converted his mind to the metric system so I had to go to the trouble to convert the 30cm diameter size.

30cm is 11.81 inches. Since the disc seems to be a little damaged on one side, it may have originally measured exactly 1 ft. in diameter.

Thats interesting since our system is largely derived from Germay I think.
And I can visualize it much better now.

Posted: **Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:08 pm**

For scale,
here's a technician of some sort holding it up for view soon after it was brought to public attention.

Posted: **Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:27 pm**

http://www.neara.org/MiscReports/12-08a-03.htm

This is a report on the "Goseck Circle" in Germany. It fits in nicely with our earlier discussion about an older European civilization.

There is a related report and another picture regarding the Nebra disk.

Posted: **Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:28 pm**

Thanks, Beagle, for the article on the Gosseck circle.
That is pretty old! I do find it fascinating.
The author of Seahenge says these "sacred circles" were places
that fulfilled social functions as well as just being calendars or observatories. He says that everyone met there annually or semiannually and worked together on bulding or expanding the sites,
and performed rituals of various kinds indicated by the artifacts that have been found in and around them.

But I find the article a bit blase about everything, accepting
things uncritically. i was a little surprised that it was in Scientific American.
As in a lot of these "mysterious" old sites, we think we understand things, but there often other things about them that don't fit the concept.
Like that northern gate that isn't exactly northern. or the slight discrepancy of 82 degrees vs. 82.5 degrees in measurements of the
Nebra discs. (I think I used to have a girlfriend by that name....)

Like the fact that the article says it is an an accurate depiction of the heavens. But shows two moons (the author says) and a bunch of random stars.

He or she also says that the ancients only studied the sun at first...
but I believe the moon was equally fascinating to them. It is associated
with menstruation, tides, and so on, and it is different every night.
The stars must have blown them away, too.
But supposing the sun was the biggie, why isn't it depicted on the disc,
according to the author? Why does the disc depict the moon, stars, and night sky, and yet is alleged to show where the SUN rises and sets?
See ya.

Posted: **Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:01 am**

I agree with that Stan. Skygazing must have been one of mankinds earliest hobbies, and a useful one.

After reading a bit about the Nebra disc, I'm not feeling very confident as to it's provenance. Looting is such big business. These people would have every motive to keep the primary discovery site secret. It's seems very possible that they gave away this one small cache of artifacts.

And only 25 km from there is the Goseck circle.

As you said, it seems that the disk was affixed to something. It doesn't seem imposing enough to belong on a shield, or armor, etc.

I don't have a good guess but it reminds me of the jumbled symbols of "magic" that we used to see on the comic book illustrations of ancient sorcerors. (you know - with the long robe and the dunce cap and a wand?)

Someone here may have a good idea but I'm not seeing any valid astronomy there.

Posted: **Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:21 pm**

It's Merlin's serving platter! I thought about the sorcerer thing when I first saw it too. I wonder what the back looks like. Like, are there any attachment points there for hangin' on a shield or on the wall or around one's neck. An ancient Mr. T.

Posted: **Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:35 pm**

Why is every stone circle assumed to be an "observatory?" How many "observatories" do you need?

You don't need a circle to plot the rising of the sun on different dates. The sun moves north to south in about a 45 degree wide band. To check the rising point you need a central point and one marker for each of the Winter and Summer solstices and one for the Equinox. If you want to make things complicated you can put in 3 more stones on the other side to show where the sun sets on those days.

Posted: **Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:50 pm**

The sun moves north to south

It's nice to see that I'm not the only one here to have a faux pas.

Posted: **Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:57 pm**

In an arc from about 23.5 degrees north to 23.5 degrees south...in apparent movement.

(The sun doesn't move east-to-west, either....the earth does.)

Okay? Feel better?