Farnese Atlas
bump
"There was no doubt in Schaefer's mind "
Seems pretty speculative to me.
In never ceases to amaze me how brilliant people in antiquity were sometimes.
A few years ago, he decided to try to determine the actual date of Christ's Crucifixion using purely scientific methods. He wrote a computer program that factored in all the astronomical data he could unearth from the time. Then, because the Crucifixion is thought to have taken place 14 or 15 days after a crescent moon first became visible, he added in thousands of modern records of atmospheric haze to approximate periods of high and low visibility in the ancient Middle East.
Rolling back the calendar more than 1,900 years, he came up with two dates: AD 30 and 33.
Bible scholars, comparing biblical texts with historical records, have arrived at similar dates.
It will take all of his genius and a ton of money to get the answer to that question! < /sarcasm >
GGG ping?
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest -- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
If you see any updates on Schaefer's work on the sun and global warming, I'd love to be pinged.
World-ranked tiddlywinks player?
Peep this.
Astronomy ping.
Just an observation: Ptolemy was extolled as a great scientist because he was known: his work survived. It was honored and taught just because of that.
Ptolemy, as most "scientists" of his day didn't list a compendium of all of his sources, annotate and footnote: those are modern inventions. I don't believe he said "I discovered all this stuff, so y'all listen and give me credit..."[or its Latin equivalent], but not having read every shred of his work, I could be wrong.
My point is that the knowlege was attributed to him and thats why "Ptolemy" had his place: its not like he demanded it.
Why then the creation of a moral argument that its wrong to acknowlege his work? That he "lied"?
Have people become that stupid and myopic?
bttt
bump
Excellent read.
Hey - they didn't have TV to watch or the Democrats to contend with - so they looked at the stars. Clever people.
I hate to rain on this guys parade, but, there is something odd about this whole story. I focus on the fact that there is great precision involved, and the fact that it is copy.
Now, I can accept the fact that a sculptor can also be a scientist skilled in other disciplines including spherical geometry (da Vinci is perhaps the best example). This rare combination might apply to the creator of the original or to the creator of the copy, but what are the odds that it would apply to both?
The determination of the time when "it" was created is also up in the air. Is it the original or the copy which has been dated? Did the creator of the copy appreciate the difference?
Finally, I have been of the opinion all my life that if you take 50-100 objects of random sizes and distribute them on a flat surface, the odds of matching some portion of the sky is almost inevitable, so long as high presision is not expected (as in using modern instruments).
Nevertheless, this whole story is fascinating. A celestial version of the Piri Reis map.
I'll be interested in reading his conclusions on sunspot activity! He sure seems to take a lot of time and care in his investigations.
bttt