Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Oldest Lunar Calendar Found In Scotland

Posted by samzenpus on from the saving-dates dept.

First time accepted submitter eionmac writes "The BBC reports that Archaeologists believe they have discovered the world's oldest lunar 'calendar' in an Aberdeenshire field. Excavations of a field at Crathes Castle found a series of 12 pits which appear to mimic the phases of the moon and track lunar months. A team led by the University of Birmingham suggests the ancient monument was created by hunter-gatherers about 10,000 years ago. The pit alignment, at Warren Field, was first excavated in 2004. The experts who analyzed the pits said they may have contained a wooden post. The Mesolithic calendar is thousands of years older than previous known formal time-measuring monuments created in Mesopotamia. The analysis has been published in the journal Internet Archaeology."

9 of 51 comments (clear)

  1. ahem by wbr1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The experts who analyzed the pits said they may have contained a wooden post.

    So, first moon post?

    Thanks, I'll be here all week. Try the filet mignon.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  2. The more they study it ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The more they realize that there was a lot more known by pre-historic people than we've suspected.

    Mankind had many thousands of years to try to do things before we had a written history, and everyone likes to believe those cultures were oblivious.

    But it seems the more they look at this, the more things like agriculture, building, and some understanding of astronomy was a lot more widespread.

    It didn't just suddenly start with the Egyptians.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:The more they study it ... by PmanAce · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Who is claiming everything started with the Egyptians?

      --
      Tired of my customary (Score:1)
    2. Re:The more they study it ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Informative

      When something is dated several millenia before the birth of civilization

      See, the problem is 10,000 years ago isn't before the birth of civilization, it's just before civilization as we know it and have historically understood it.

      People have tended to believe the Sumerians and Babylonians were the first civilizations, but there's mounting evidence that there were things going on that predates that by quite a bit.

      The whole point is the more they discover, they more they are pushing back the 'birth of civilization'.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:The more they study it ... by steelfood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Duh?

      Most people are surprised by how intelligent ancient humans were because in their mind, they begin with the fallacy that people today (i.e. themselves) are more intelligent than people ten, twelve, fifteen thousand years ago. This in and of itself is an extrapolation from the certainty that they are smarter than their parents and grandparents.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    4. Re:The more they study it ... by argStyopa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've found that people today are generally very dismissive of early cultures, as if 'primitive' was synonymous with stupid.

      Personally, in terms of raw horsepower (and conceding that these early people would likely have much more broadly suffered early childhood illnesses, malnutrition, and such that would generally impair higher functions) I suspect early peoples were generally much MORE intelligent than we are today.

      Of course, it could be that they weren't so constantly distracted. I'd think about this more, but I think someone just texted me.

      --
      -Styopa
    5. Re:The more they study it ... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      (I really love the episode where he doesn't even take the hint from some Oxbridge geneticist that around 80% of the English population are of Celtic descent..)

      Certainly you're mistaken. The majority of English genetic material, as far as I know, is actually of pre-Celtic descent. Both the Celtic and Anglo-Saxon element were mostly cultural admixtures rather than large-scale population movements. Certainly no genocide of the original population took place. Or am I wrong?

      ...WHAT? Mick is dead? Fuck me. Fuck me again. :(

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  3. That settles it by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Scots must be lunatics!

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  4. Simple Explanation by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 3, Funny

    All the amazing accomplishments by ancient civilizations can be easily explained.

    Nothing good on TV.