Author of the Month :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
Join us at this forum every month for a discussion with famous popular authors from around the world. 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Engbren, thank you for noting your prior recognition of “the folly of Sweatman's approach”. Your investigating of the Westcar Papyrus is on the right track, it is probably calendric star lore involving decans. There is an episode with scantily clad female rowers in Colonna’s 1500s Hypnerotomachia Poliphili. Westcar material may record some conscious symbols, and some subconscious expression of archetype. Thus two kinds of decoding may be necessary. It is probably not entirely degraded astronomy science and craft, and not entirely inspired myth. I will read comments in your string and reply there.
Regarding use of astronomy automation such as Stellarium, Sky Chart, etc in archaeology or anthropology, at least two main cautions should apply: relevance, and epoch;
[] Relevance. Is the data astronomical? Very few artworks, building sites, artefacts, rituals, myths or divination sets were or are intended as star maps. Even most calendars do not arise directly or exclusively from constellations.
For example, Babylonian hour decans re-express some other cultural media, but largely archetype. Which constellations also express. Most correspondences between media are due to their common origin, subconscious expression of archetypal structure.
To borrow and example from Plato, there are three kings of chairs; A, B, C. Chairs B and C are two examples of different styles of chair, implying that there are also chairs D, E, F, etc. Chair A is type Chair, an ‘idea’ (not implying that people invented it, rather that it awaited its need, purpose and ‘makers’), it does not exist physically and could not be studied directly, except in various expressions. Some stylists borrow elements from one another. Most crafters try to make their chairs look as different as possible. Differences do not imply independent ‘discovery’ or ‘development’. Materials develop along a technology curve; wood, skin, bronze, iron, titanium, plastics, etc. But the core content of culture, and archetype, does not change or develop. Thus we have to distinguish between two aspects of culture; meaning, core content or semiotics sustained by archetype and camouflaged by ‘citations’ or borrowings; and material, driven by population density and technology.
Resemblances between calendric, astronomical, artistic, architectural, craftic, ritualist, mythic, epic or divinatory sets, do not imply that one derives from the other, but that all subconsciously express the main features of archetype; usually sixteen types in the periphery; always in the same spatial sequence (usually scrambles in the narrative sequence); in spatial media such as artworks and building sites, the eyes or focal points of type characters always form an axial grid; and certain junctures near the centre of the group express cosmological polar features. Conscious intent is incapable of making this imprint, or tupos in Greek, that I label mindprint in art or stoneprint in building sites.
Another example, Egyptian ‘astronomical’ ceilings (Neugebauer and Parker 1969) are useless as star maps, but good ‘myth maps’.
Astronomical data examples where astronomy software is helpful; Chankilo earthwork and horizon markers in Peru. A few Japanese tomb ceilings.
[] Epoch. Is the data within a time-frame where astronomical assumptions of the rate of change of obliquity, precession, and proper motion apply? Current software assume the Stockwell Curve or Newcombe Curve and cycle, based on a set of assumptions, retained and slightly tweaked by recent data. See Dodwell’s criticism of these assumptions, cited in my post on Gobekli, on [stoneprintjournal.blog] (the graph showing how known obliquity data diverges from the Newcomb curve, is about eighteen screens or clicks into the article). Some astronomers assume that obliquity is independent of precession rate.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12-Aug-19 14:09 by Edmond.

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Sweatman's Decoding prehistory and Gobekli 'zodiac' criticised 7719 Edmond 06-Aug-19 19:36
Re: Sweatman's Decoding prehistory and Gobekli 'zodiac' criticised 170 jazzmumbles 07-Aug-19 00:41
Re: Sweatman's Decoding prehistory and Gobekli 'zodiac' criticised 157 Edmond 07-Aug-19 07:58
Re: Sweatman's Decoding prehistory and Gobekli 'zodiac' criticised 83 jazzmumbles 19-Aug-19 02:18
Re: Gobekli dates, and archetypes in different art styles 92 Edmond 19-Aug-19 10:33
Re: Gobekli dates, and archetypes in different art styles 370 Poster Boy 21-Aug-19 04:49
Re: Sweatman's Decoding prehistory and Gobekli 'zodiac' criticised 143 Susan Doris 07-Aug-19 05:21
Re: Sweatman's Decoding prehistory and Gobekli 'zodiac' criticised 88 greengirl5 09-Aug-19 23:11
Re: Sweatman's Decoding prehistory and Gobekli 'zodiac' criticised 82 Eddie Larry 09-Aug-19 23:25
summary? 137 drrayeye 08-Aug-19 05:27
Re: summary? 144 Edmond 08-Aug-19 07:25
Re: summary? 129 drrayeye 08-Aug-19 23:13
Re: summary? 122 Corpuscles 09-Aug-19 02:22
Re: summary? 110 drrayeye 09-Aug-19 02:55
Re: summary? 124 Corpuscles 09-Aug-19 03:25
Re: summary? 116 drrayeye 09-Aug-19 05:45
Re: summary? 84 greengirl5 09-Aug-19 23:23
Only one scientist 96 drrayeye 09-Aug-19 23:58
Re: Sweatman's Decoding prehistory and Gobekli 'zodiac' criticised 142 Corpuscles 08-Aug-19 09:18
Re: Sweatman's Decoding prehistory and Gobekli 'zodiac' criticised 132 engbren 08-Aug-19 11:53
Re: Sweatman's Decoding prehistory and Gobekli 'zodiac' criticised 110 Edmond 11-Aug-19 15:09
Re: Sweatman's Decoding prehistory and Gobekli 'zodiac' criticised 79 engbren 12-Aug-19 13:42
Mod Note > Topic Moved 97 Dr. Troglodyte 09-Aug-19 18:44


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.