Oldest-known Solar Eclipse Recorded in Stone

XorNand writes: "Astronomy.com is reporting that a scientist, using astronomy simulation software, has correlated ancient stone carvings in Ireland to a solar eclipse that occurred on November 30, 3340 BC. Also interesting are the other pieces of evidence in the area, including the charred remains of 48 people found nearby that were the result of a panicked attempt to appease the sun gods."

Comments

Re:this is pretty lame april fools

[jfengel]

Uh, sure it does. The sun is eclipsed by the moon (a solar eclipse). More often, the moon is eclipsed by the earth (a lunar eclipse).

I'm not sure if you just don't believe in solar eclipses, or if you've forgotten about the less-interesting-to-look-at lunar eclipses and misunderstanding the word "eclipsed". It is true that the sun never eclipses the moon; is that what you meant to say?

The two kinds of eclipses are actually rather different. In a solar eclipse, the moon is between us and the sun; you see the moon rather than the sun. In a lunar eclipse, the earth casts a shadow on the moon; the earth blocks the light but not the moon itself. In both cases what you're seeing is an unlit moon, one with the sun behind it and another with the sun in front but shadowed by the earth. But we call them eclipses of the sun and moon, because we name the eclipse after the bright object we would ordinarily be seeing but can't.

Re:My own misinterpretation of the drawing

[sandalle]

Perhaps you haven't heard of the Sumerian texts writtin (IIRC) about 25,000 years ago. They had quite the "advanced" civilization, with telescopes among them. Lemuria and Atlantis also had the "technology" of telescopes. You are being deliberately obtuse when you "assume" something that you have no proof of and use that as part of your proof. In order to have a _correct_ proof, the data that you build your proof upon _must_ be proven correct, which is nigh unto impossible here, as we have no way of knowing what did and did not exist 5000 years ago.

Now, I'm not saying that they for _sure_ had telescopes, but that they had the _possibility_ of having telescopes and that your outright denial is ludicrous. As I mentioned before, we do _not_ know for sure either way.

Re:Arrogant Archaeologists

[j_w_d]

Being an archaeologist, I reckon this needs an answer, or a reply at least. First, there is a very broad brush being used here implying that all us Marshalltown wielders are arrogant. It is logically fallacious, and contrary to reality as well. Among the most aggravating aspects of archaeology is the regionalization and insularism that we have to deal with whenever we move outside our normal regions and go some where else. Crossing the Atlantic results in enormous differences in how archaeologists view what they do, how they learn their trade, and even what's considered worth finding. Go to Israel and you find the Israelis were bery fond of architecture to the sometimes complete loss of most archaeological information. Go to Britain and you will find the discipline heavily invested in "post-processualism" and the use of critical theory, a practice that seems more than a little odd to many from the western side of the pond. Talk to a historical archaeologist about prehistory or vice versa, and you will undoubtedly get an earful, most of it not much use to hear. You have to remember that archaeologists are human, prone to the same failings as the rest of the race, particularly the fondess for collecting pet ideas, regardless of their real utility.

Now, consider the article. First, it wasn't written by an archaeologist but instead is a "popular" piece written by a reporter. There are major gaps in the story as advanced and these would be subject to peer-review normally, but the popular press doesn't wait for such measured and qualified (as in 'hedged') discussion. There are several obvious criticisms.

For instance, the implication of the limestone pillar or post is that after celebrating their survival, these people dashed off and lugged home a piece of alien rock to employ as a cenotaph. The whole picture is absurd. Second, there is the suggestion that the burned bones in the tomb/s were human sacrifices, but nothing was offered in support of this. You can go on, but the real problem is that there is no way to differentiate between the archaeologist's words and thoughts, and the wax -if any- in the ears of the reporter.

Now, considering Ireland and the Irish 5Ky ago. First, as far the evidence goes, I have to admit that it appears my very own ancestors trotting over those green, green bogs were indeed illiterate. They were not however, unsophisticated.

The period in question saw the the construction of the Egyptian pyramids at Giza, and the rise of the megalithic cultures of western Europe, when huge stones were moved miles for the construction of graves, sacred precincts, henge monuments and the great passage graves. Some of these latter show a profound concern for astronomical phenomena and years ago it was proven that Stone Henge in England could be used to predict eclipses, both lunar and solar. It seems reasonable then to suspect a concern among the occupants of the British Isles with things like solar calendar events, and where the moo will rise and set, and even eclipses.

So, what do we really know about people 5Ky ago? Precious little. The Egyptians were busy inventing, agricultural was off to a good start throughout Asia, the middle east, Egypt, and Europe wherever the Neolithic was taking hold. Writing is invented by the Eygptians during the Early Dynastic period. We know that the Egyptians were religious and built grandly. We know that the use of stone in architecture really appears at its earliest in western Europe, but not why. Consequently, many archaeologists argue by analogy. Thus during solar eclipses in the Middle East, Bedouin stay home, keep their kids, cattle, horses and camals inside and wait for the darkness to go away. Being exposed to the dark of an eclipse out doors is bad cess and any sensible, traditional Arab avoids it. Now, since the last time this happened was just about three years ago, you are right, we may not have changed that much. On the other hand would these early Irish be likely to resemble us or the Bedouin more? Think about it some, then tell me who the arrogant one is?

Re:Arrogant Archaeologists

[j_w_d]

The litany of development you recite is the exact reason these archaeologists are surprised.

Actually, the story indicates the Irish archaeologist was on a fishing expedition for an astronomical correlation for those 5 Ky old carvings. So he wasn't surprised. In fact no archaeologist familiar with the Megalithic and Neolithic archaeology of Britain and Ireland is really going to be surprised. These people had some very profound abilities in geometery that they used regularly to construct Henges, and major mortuary monuments. No surprises for archaeologists in this other than the irritatingly over-explicit just-so story about the burned "sacrificial victims" and the limestone cenotaph, and that came from the archaeologist, not the archaeology.