Archaeologists do it in holes: Tales from the stratigraphy

[Razgovory]

Very interesting - so Gobelke Tepe had contemporary structures. I guess that should not be surprising.

Both appear to have been ceremonially buried.

The researcher is wise not to attempt to comment on what the iconography could mean - with singleton structures like this, that would be pure guesswork. Unless they are very lucky, there is likely to be no evidence other than the structure itself as to its meaning or purpose - a sacred procession is already a risky guess.

Not that far away from Gobelke Tepe, could have been built by the same people.

No, but they did use some of the same subcontractors.

[Razgovory]

Huh?  Which star is supposed to be missing?

>Careful measurements with the Gaia space telescope and others show the stars of the Pleiades are slowly moving in the sky. One star, Pleione, is now so close to the star Atlas they look like a single star to the naked eye.

But if we take what we know about the movement of the stars and rewind 100,000 years, Pleione was further from Atlas and would have been easily visible to the naked eye. So 100,000 years ago, most people really would have seen seven stars in the cluster.


It's pretty cool stuff. Fascinating delve into pre history via an unorthodox angle.

They can't see one star because there is another star in the same place?  So when people would look up they would see seven stars in the constellation but decide that there are really 6 stars because they somehow remember the positions of all the stars prior to fully sentient human beings?

[Jacob]

They can't see one star because there is another star in the same place?  So when people would look up they would see seven stars in the constellation but decide that there are really 6 stars because they somehow remember the positions of all the stars prior to fully sentient human beings?

There used to be seven visible stars. People had stories about them. "Those seven stars are the seven sisters."

Over time, one of them moved so it was lined up with another. That made it look like there were six stars. People still called the group of stars the seven sisters because that's what they'd always been called.

... but they could only see six. So new stories were told, explaining how something happened to one of the seven sisters, "so now there's only six left."

Is this confusing?

(also Homo Sapiens appeared about 300,000 years ago, so this is not "prior to fully sentient human beings")

[Malthus]

They can't see one star because there is another star in the same place?  So when people would look up they would see seven stars in the constellation but decide that there are really 6 stars because they somehow remember the positions of all the stars prior to fully sentient human beings?

There used to be seven visible stars. People had stories about them. "Those seven stars are the seven sisters."

Over time, one of them moved so it was lined up with another. That made it look like there were six stars. People still called the group of stars the seven sisters because that's what they'd always been called.

... but they could only see six. So new stories were told, explaining how something happened to one of the seven sisters, "so now there's only six left."

Is this confusing?

(also Homo Sapiens appeared about 300,000 years ago, so this is not "prior to fully sentient human beings")

The problem I have with this account is not just the inherent improbability of oral accounts lasting for so long (that can't be proven one way or another); it is that the stories all allegedly involve one "sister" vanishing ... but that is not how it would have appeared to any person. They only "disappear" with the benefit of thousands of years of hindsight.

Rather, one "sister" would have appeared to merge with another, over a very long period of time. So if this was a genuine survival of an oral tradition, you would expect that this is an aspect the story makers would have picked up on - that two of them were really close.

There is a more likely explanation: apparently, people with really good eyesight can, in fact, see seven stars. In his book *Two Little Savages*, Earnest Thompson Seaton wrote about a Native American traditional game in which people strove to see how many stars in that cluster they can see - ordinary people can see only five or six, but extraordinary good eyesight people could see seven. See chapter six; "thems as sees seven are mighty well off for eyes".

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/13499/13499-h/13499-h.htm

[Malthus]

For a modern take, see:

https://earthsky.org/space/myth-and-science-of-pleiades-star-cluster/

Again, people with good eyesight can see seven stars.

Allegedly, there is a Polynesian legend that once they were a single star, and a god smashed them into several fragments ... which does not correspond with any actual star history.

[Jacob]

The problem I have with this account is not just the inherent improbability of oral accounts lasting for so long (that can't be proven one way or another); it is that the stories all allegedly involve one "sister" vanishing ... but that is not how it would have appeared to any person. They only "disappear" with the benefit of thousands of years of hindsight.

Rather, one "sister" would have appeared to merge with another, over a very long period of time. So if this was a genuine survival of an oral tradition, you would expect that this is an aspect the story makers would have picked up on - that two of them were really close.

There is a more likely explanation: apparently, people with really good eyesight can, in fact, see seven stars. In his book *Two Little Savages*, Earnest Thompson Seaton wrote about a Native American traditional game in which people strove to see how many stars in that cluster they can see - ordinary people can see only five or six, but extraordinary good eyesight people could see seven. See chapter six; "thems as sees seven are mighty well off for eyes".

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/13499/13499-h/13499-h.htm

For sure. I wasn't arguing that the proposed idea is correct - intriguing though it is - just clarifying based on my understanding since Raz seemed confused.

[crazy canuck]

Very interesting - so Gobelke Tepe had contemporary structures. I guess that should not be surprising.

Both appear to have been ceremonially buried.

The researcher is wise not to attempt to comment on what the iconography could mean - with singleton structures like this, that would be pure guesswork. Unless they are very lucky, there is likely to be no evidence other than the structure itself as to its meaning or purpose - a sacred procession is already a risky guess.

Not that far away from Gobelke Tepe, could have been built by the same people.

About a thousand years separate the two sites though.  Interesting to think about what was happening during that period of time.

[crazy canuck]

For a modern take, see:

https://earthsky.org/space/myth-and-science-of-pleiades-star-cluster/

Again, people with good eyesight can see seven stars.

Allegedly, there is a Polynesian legend that once they were a single star, and a god smashed them into several fragments ... which does not correspond with any actual star history.

Is it important that the creation of what is seen in the star patterns correspond with what actually happened?  Isn't the point is the similarity of the myths.  But there are all kinds of holes that can be poked in those similarities.

[viper37]

They can't see one star because there is another star in the same place?  So when people would look up they would see seven stars in the constellation but decide that there are really 6 stars because they somehow remember the positions of all the stars prior to fully sentient human beings?

There used to be seven visible stars. People had stories about them. "Those seven stars are the seven sisters."

Over time, one of them moved so it was lined up with another. That made it look like there were six stars. People still called the group of stars the seven sisters because that's what they'd always been called.

... but they could only see six. So new stories were told, explaining how something happened to one of the seven sisters, "so now there's only six left."

Is this confusing?

(also Homo Sapiens appeared about 300,000 years ago, so this is not "prior to fully sentient human beings")

The problem I have with this account is not just the inherent improbability of oral accounts lasting for so long (that can't be proven one way or another); it is that the stories all allegedly involve one "sister" vanishing ... but that is not how it would have appeared to any person. They only "disappear" with the benefit of thousands of years of hindsight.

Rather, one "sister" would have appeared to merge with another, over a very long period of time. So if this was a genuine survival of an oral tradition, you would expect that this is an aspect the story makers would have picked up on - that two of them were really close.

There is a more likely explanation: apparently, people with really good eyesight can, in fact, see seven stars. In his book *Two Little Savages*, Earnest Thompson Seaton wrote about a Native American traditional game in which people strove to see how many stars in that cluster they can see - ordinary people can see only five or six, but extraordinary good eyesight people could see seven. See chapter six; "thems as sees seven are mighty well off for eyes".

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/13499/13499-h/13499-h.htm

I suppose the way you see these stars could also be influenced by where you watch them on Earth?

The similarities in tales is intriguing, but it's possible the proponent of the theory has left aside other, contradicting stories.

I don't think it would have appeared over generations, to the naked eye, that the stars were getting closer.  And if they moved so fast that in less than 100 000 years they might have well looked different to the ancient Greeks 3000 years ago than they look to us now.

[Malthus]

Everyone has heard of the Vasa, but I had never previously heard of the Gribshunden, another fantastic underwater archeology find from Sweden.

Not in as good condition, but quite a bit older, it is filled with all sorts of interesting archeological survivals.

https://www.crafoord.se/utvaldabidrag/gribshunden-shipwreck-a-short-report-from-the-2019-excavation/?cn-reloaded=1

[The Brain]

Everyone has heard of the Vasa, but I had never previously heard of the Gribshunden, another fantastic underwater archeology find from Sweden.

Not in as good condition, but quite a bit older, it is filled with all sorts of interesting archeological survivals.

https://www.crafoord.se/utvaldabidrag/gribshunden-shipwreck-a-short-report-from-the-2019-excavation/?cn-reloaded=1

Very cool.

[Malthus]

For a modern take, see:

https://earthsky.org/space/myth-and-science-of-pleiades-star-cluster/

Again, people with good eyesight can see seven stars.

Allegedly, there is a Polynesian legend that once they were a single star, and a god smashed them into several fragments ... which does not correspond with any actual star history.

Is it important that the creation of what is seen in the star patterns correspond with what actually happened?  Isn't the point is the similarity of the myths.  But there are all kinds of holes that can be poked in those similarities.

The first question is why the myths are so similar. The explanation given in the theory proposed is that ancient peoples around the world noticed that the seventh star was "gone" so created similar myths to explain that apparent disappearance. The second argument being, if the myths were not a survival of an ancient memory, how do these peoples know there are seven stars?

Problem with the theory is that people with good eyesight can in fact see seven stars. So they don't need to have remembered stuff from so long ago to make the myth. Problem with the second argument is that there are lots of myths about those stars, some of which are quite different and do not correspond to actual astronomical events (a Polynesian myth is that they are the shattered bits of an original single star). The myths only seem very similar because of selection.

[Razgovory]

They can't see one star because there is another star in the same place?  So when people would look up they would see seven stars in the constellation but decide that there are really 6 stars because they somehow remember the positions of all the stars prior to fully sentient human beings?

There used to be seven visible stars. People had stories about them. "Those seven stars are the seven sisters."

Over time, one of them moved so it was lined up with another. That made it look like there were six stars. People still called the group of stars the seven sisters because that's what they'd always been called.

... but they could only see six. So new stories were told, explaining how something happened to one of the seven sisters, "so now there's only six left."

Is this confusing?

(also Homo Sapiens appeared about 300,000 years ago, so this is not "prior to fully sentient human beings")

I think I figured what is the cause of the confusion.  The stars that are overlapping are not both part of Pleiades, only one is.  The other star, Atlas, is part of Tauris, but isn't a major portion of it.  It's just classified that way because that's what it is close to. So if Atlas took Pleione's place in the Pleiades it would would still look like there are seven stars.   Also, they changed the name!  It was Tauri 57.  The name Atlas is new.

Anyway the point is moot.  Both Tauri 57 and Pleione are mentioned by Ptolemy.  So people could see it 2000 years ago.

Anatomically modern humans had evolved 300,000 years ago, but behavioral modernity took longer.  Stuff like abstract thinking, complex reasoning, connecting signifiers and the signified, happened within the last 100,000 years.  It's not clear when people could do all that, or what caused them to be able to do it.
Evidence is sparse and hard to date.  The point is that 100,000 years ago people may not have been able to think like we do now.

[Jacob]

They can't see one star because there is another star in the same place?  So when people would look up they would see seven stars in the constellation but decide that there are really 6 stars because they somehow remember the positions of all the stars prior to fully sentient human beings?

There used to be seven visible stars. People had stories about them. "Those seven stars are the seven sisters."

Over time, one of them moved so it was lined up with another. That made it look like there were six stars. People still called the group of stars the seven sisters because that's what they'd always been called.

... but they could only see six. So new stories were told, explaining how something happened to one of the seven sisters, "so now there's only six left."

Is this confusing?

(also Homo Sapiens appeared about 300,000 years ago, so this is not "prior to fully sentient human beings")

I think I figured what is the cause of the confusion.  The stars that are overlapping are not both part of Pleiades, only one is.  The other star, Atlas, is part of Tauris, but isn't a major portion of it.  It's just classified that way because that's what it is close to. So if Atlas took Pleione's place in the Pleiades it would would still look like there are seven stars.   Also, they changed the name!  It was Tauri 57.  The name Atlas is new.

Anyway the point is moot.  Both Tauri 57 and Pleione are mentioned by Ptolemy.  So people could see it 2000 years ago.

Fair enough

Anatomically modern humans had evolved 300,000 years ago, but behavioral modernity took longer.  Stuff like abstract thinking, complex reasoning, connecting signifiers and the signified, happened within the last 100,000 years.  It's not clear when people could do all that, or what caused them to be able to do it.

Evidence is sparse and hard to date.  The point is that 100,000 years ago people may not have been able to think like we do now.

Interesting. This is not an area I've done much reading in. Is the prevailing consensus that we had anatomic homo sapiens for about 200,000 that were mentally different from more recent homo sapiens? What sort of evidence (scant though it may be) is that built on, do you know?

[mongers]

Anatomically modern humans had evolved 300,000 years ago, but behavioral modernity took longer.  Stuff like abstract thinking, complex reasoning, connecting signifiers and the signified, happened within the last 100,000 years.  It's not clear when people could do all that, or what caused them to be able to do it.

Evidence is sparse and hard to date.  The point is that 100,000 years ago people may not have been able to think like we do now.

Interesting. This is not an area I've done much reading in. Is the prevailing consensus that we had anatomic homo sapiens for about 200,000 that were mentally different from more recent homo sapiens? What sort of evidence (scant though it may be) is that built on, do you know?

Grumbler remembers trying to converse with them at the time.