Talk:Nebra sky disk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

plan of the stonehenge site
Archaeology Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? Class: This article has not been assigned a class according to the assessment scale.


Contents

[edit] Moved from [User_talk:Adamsan]

I've added a subsection devoted to presenting the skepticism that justly centers on this object. I hope you'll add some links if there are any.

"Skeptical criticism

The disk has only just begun to attract the kind of speculation that hangs over Stonehenge, but uneasiness about the circumstances of its recovery have focused on the following weaknesses: " Wetman 22:38, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Sorry Wetman I can't let that pass. You have reverted to the previous POV article and are presenting theory as fact. There is no secure provenence for the disc and therefore to call it a record of the earliest observatory recorded and a Bronze Age artefact is misleading when it may well be a fake. The Scientific American article appears to be about a different site altogether and that is why I removed it. The whole thing is POV and demands a rewrite.

When User:adamsan ("Professional archaeologist and general smartarse" according to his his userpage) says "there is no secure provenance" a reader may be led to think that there is no secure provenance. The entry then must detail the provenance, as outlined in the 2000 Scientific American article. But User:adamsan has suppressed reference to that article. The landesmuseum site linked has very convincing micrographs of the object, unfakeable. Worth looking at the pitchers, even for someone whose German is as limited as his manners. I see this entry needs to be expanded. Wetman 18:03, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

--adamsan 07:21, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Here is a link to a FAQ about it, both english and german http://www.archlsa.de/sterne/faq.htm "6. What is the significance of the location? The find spot is situated on the Mittelberg near Nebra which also displays astronomical context. The site's special aspect can be seen in the correct determination of at least two important dates, e.g., on the 21 June the sun can be seen from here to set exactly behind the Brocken, the most important mountain in the Harz, and similarly, on 1 May the sun sets behind the Kulpenberg, the highest hill of the Kyffhäuser. Since 20.08.2002 we are excavating the immediate find spot where the hunters' disturbances were discovered. The complete site consists of a circular embankment that encloses the summit of the hill. The find spot insists of several ramparts which presumably date to different periods which contributes a chronological examination of the relationships within this enclosure shall be investigated in the coming years."


From dictionary.com:

prov·e·nance P Pronunciation Key (prv-nns, -näns) n. Place of origin; derivation. Proof of authenticity or of past ownership. Used of art works and antiques

There is no secure provenance for this item as its 'finder' says it was looted, not archaeologically excavated. Without evidence that it came from this site we have no proof. Archaeologists talk about 'contexts' which are just as important as the items themselves. The disc could be from somewhere else or a fake. If it was looted then it was almost certainly dug up surreptitiously, in a hurry and at night. How can anyone say with any certainty that the item came from this pit in Nebra? If it's a fake then the whole tale could have been made up to provide a convincing backstory. The SciAm article appears to be about a different site entirely, one in a wheatfield, not a forest - how on God's green earth is it supposed to have any relevance to the disc?

Why did you yourself suppress a link to the BBC Horizon documentary on the disk Wetman?

Whatever the truth, this article should not assume that the disc is authentic, securely dated or provenanced until published material is produced. That is the academic and scientific method. We may want to believe that the disc is real but we cannot assume so until the information is published. --adamsan 18:26, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

That was a perfectly dreadful but inadvertent gaffe on my part, frankly, because the BBC's documentary is very revealing. More quotes from it will clear the atmosphere eh. I shall explicate the Landesmuseum's commentary on the quite definitive microphotographs. There is no reason to expect anyone to read German. Most archaeologists do, though... Oh well. But User:Adamsan's stance of skepticism does reflect the current situation: all the skeptics are Brits! Dear Old Stonehenge. No problem, we understand. Nobody beats us Yanks at provincialism. The Shroud of Turin is quite dishonest as a comparison, doesn't everyone agree?. I have left it in the entry, to see whether Adamsan might withdraw it. Wetman 01:09, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
I mentioned the disc to my swedish teacher (lector) in archaeology and he has big doubts about the disc's autencity - instead he claimed that it's from the 15/16th century AC. My point is - even though Sweden has nothing to loose in supporting claims of the disc's authencity there still are doubts; meaning that doubts doesn't have to include nationalism *excuse my bad english*//Charlotte, Gothenburg
Wetman, your obsession with nationalism is disturbing. Will you please understand that archaeology is a profession and one grounded in academic necessity at that. Until peer-reviewed, published material is produced, scepticism *should* prevail. This is common sense.

Another question Wetman, how did these people attach the gold symbols to the disc? Glue? It seems odd that such advanced metallurgical skills are are unique to this one artefact. Perhaps when something is *published* all will become clear. The controversy over the Shroud being a counterfeit or an important religious artefact seems quite relevant to me but if you wish to edit it, I shall not quibble. Love from --adamsan 08:11, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

on method of affixing: http://www.archlsa.de/sterne/goldtauschierung.htm

--Yak 07:48, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

--adamsan 08:11, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

To suggest that there is any parallel with the Shroud of Turin-- motivation, date, techniques, materials, history-- any parallel whatsoever, is dishonest. My obsession is with honesty. Chauvinism is just as dreary in the US as it is anywhere else. As for the disk, *something* is not only *published* it has been *linked* at the entry. And that's quite enough about that. Wetman 09:55, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Published in an established, peer-reviewed journal Wetman, not linked on the internet which is nowhere near as academically sound. Real big love from --adamsan 10:19, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

--- Points arising from my edits of 1st July 2004

  • The rewritten first sentence is now more factual and without subjective references to believability, which can be explored later on.
  • Mentions of the Neolithic removed until supporting evidence from 2,000 years before the assigned date of the disc appears
  • Comparison to henge removed until supporting evidence that the enclosure has a ditch inside a bank and that it dates to the Neolithic appears.
  • Yes, metal detectorist is the most common term for them
  • Unsubstantiated (and offensive) comments about British archaeologists removed.

--- copper source: do you known of any other copper objects found in the early Bronze age in east Germany with a Carpathian origin? The ore mountains are a much nearer source, and indeed local copper mining has been used to explain rich burials like Leubingen and Helmstedt. Anyway, the edit as it is now does not much sense for the reader. --Yak 17:18, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It seems tellingly inconsistent that— in an entry where an object that has been intercepted on the gray market for antiquities (but cf. Gudea, Elephantine papyri etc) is doubted for its provenance, though the original looter is identified— the source of the copper should be so blithely stated without a reference. Wetman 18:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Pernicka, E., Wunderlich, C.-H.: Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen an den Funden von Nebra. Archäologie in Sachsen-Anhalt 1, 24-29 (2002).

You are right, Wetman, we could do with some more sources --Yak 22:50, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have uploaded Image:Himmelsscheibe von Nebra.jpg to commons. Should it be linked from this article? dab (ᛏ) 10:21, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't pretend to understand copyright law but if it's Public Domain then it would certainly augment the description nicely. adamsan 18:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
museums tend to claim copyright on images of their exhibits, often on dubious grounds. as far as the disk is considered a 2-dimensional work of art (which I think is very arguable), it clearly falls under Template:PD-art. dab (ᛏ) 10:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


the image is up for deletion on commons:Commons:Deletion_requests#Image:Himmelsscheibe_von_Nebra.jpg -- if it breaches copyright (which one?) it should of course be deleted. It it doesn't, it shouldn't. Please comment. dab (ᛏ) 15:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Minor correction

I have corrected the previous version; the accompanying finds were NOT discovered by archaeologists who opened the dig after the illicit finders had led them to the supposed finding site. In fact, the accompanying finds had already been removed together with the disk by the looters in the first place. The archaeologists only found some traces that support the looters' claim. Please feel free to correct my English in the article, since I am no native speaker. --89.56.199.255 13:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] German Wikipedia

The German version of this article appears to have a great deal of useful commentary that might be edited in here. --Wetman 19:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello,

I too studied the article in the german Wikipedia and it is sure and by now proven and widely accepted that this disc is true and no fake! Scientist used high tech to research the age and the developement.

I think too it is time change this article here accordingly...--Kenaz9 02:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added Links

Have been researching this subject for senior year project and found some very useful websites - I have linked an article by the archeologist who aquired the disc from the looters, Dr Wolfhard Schlosser, (it is in German but nonetheless useful as an informed source, and even a Babelfish translation makes it fairly readable) and also a link to a copy of an article in the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (to read the original on the official website you have to pay), which gives some details about the trial of the looters and Peter Shauer's views that the disc is fake. -- master_gopher

Perhaps you'd be willing to introduce some detail from the articles you've found—or even from German Wikipedia. --Wetman 01:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Associative dating

Does WP have an article on Associative dating because I can't find one. It seems like the sort of thing that should be found in an encylopedia. As such I made "associative dating" a link. - 22nov 2006 - 23:03 UTC

[edit] OR

I've seen the disk in Basel yesterday (hence my upload of a GFDL'd image), and I am not convinced by the "boat" interpretation. I admit the thought suggests itself, and the exhibition does go out of its way to stress the importance of the solar barge and its abstract representations. But there is not one single example that shows the barge as a simple circle segment. It always has prow, keel and bow. The fact that the barge is shown separate from the Sun is also hard to explain, the lame suggestion that the barge abstractly represents "movement" of both Sun and Moon doesn't convince at all, and in their fancy animation, they make the boat sail on the outer ocean looking somewhat lost (all other elements being in the sky).

The possibility that the arc may represent the milky way has indeed been suggested, but is eclipsed by the "barge" interpretation in presentation. But if the full circle is the Sun, not the full Moon, there is no need to restrict ourselves to the night sky (and indeed the addition of the solstice markers shows that the thing was at least re-interpreted in a solar context).

I thus came to think the arc simply represents the rainbow. This explains the parallel lines running alongside it, and makes the disk a simple enumeration of celestial lights, sun, moon, stars and rainbow. I'm not trying to sneak this into the article, but I'll just datestamp this here, in case the idea crops up in an WP:RS later :) dab (𒁳) 13:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You are not the first to suggest this interpretation. Meller mentioned it at the conference in Halle in 2005 as one of the many proposals he received. In fact it has been my first guess as well. One noticeable feature of the arc is that it has scratches all around: that has been interpreted by Meller c.s. as stylised representations of oars, hence the boat. This is in analogy to scratches that are always found around stylised animals on bronze-age rasor blades from about that time: Kaul Fleming has shown that these can be interpreted as animals and boats carrying the Sun across heaven, and the scratches are oars according to him: there is contemorary rock art of boats with oars. I suggested to him that on the rasors and the sky disk they might represent some kind of light aura, but he dismissed that.
Also mind that the disk clearly has gone through several phases, probably some generations apart, and has had different meanings and interpretations accordingly. The "boat" arc is propably a later addition: its gold comes from another source than the original Moons (or Sun) and stars. Tom Peters 10:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thank you! I am not keen on being the first to have this idea, I am more keen to mention it in the article, which we can now do :) I am aware of the "oars" interpretation, but I'm not convinced by it. The Nordic Bronze Age rock art boats have stylized crew and oars, but they are different. I'd also opt for "aura", or simply for ornamentation (a style that may have become more common over the intervening time). Sure, the "boat" is a possibility, and unless a similar item is found, there will never be a proof one way or the other. dab (𒁳) 10:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oh, dear.

"...looted by illegal treasure hunters..."? A couple of guys find something in the dirt somewhere and get arrested for it? Who decides what an "archaeological artifact" is? If I dig up a 50 year old coin somewhere in Saxony-Anhalt, do the stormtroopers shoot first and ask questions later?

these were professionals, equipped with metal detectors, fully aware they were doing something illegal, and they immediately sold the finds to professional handlers. dab (𒁳) 07:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent BBC article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6722953.stm -- AnonMoos 06:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holes on the perimeter

The 39 or 40 holes of 3mm each on the perimeter of the disc indicate that the disc was probably mounted on some ty pe of frame - wooden or other type - for regular easy handling. AJIT 11:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popular Culture?

From the article: "The disk has begun to attract the kind of pseudoarchaeology, neopagan and paranormal speculation that is associated with Stonehenge and Arkaim." If this is at all relevant, then at least give some examples of what these speculations are and why they're false. MaryJones 22:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings from Romania

Sorry, my English is not very good. But I found this wonderful article on the skydisk and I have to thank you. I didn't know that it became that famous in the western countries. You have to know I'm a poor man. Once I was a professor for archaeology in my hometown of Bucharest but when communism ended I lost my job. I sat at home all the time looking for a hobby. So I took my drill machine (very solid soviet machine) an built that skydisk in my garage. Then I said to myself only the Germans are stupid enough to take this little handiwork of mine for serious and I gave it to them. And now it's that popular all over the world! God bless the foolishness of this German simpletons, they make my so happy, an old man. --BucharestBoy 01:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Moreover you built the pyramids I suppose? No problem with solid soviet tools! --EvaBriegel 05:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pity About Irelevant Discussion

The Nebra disk should be considered serious. Even the BBC reaction this summer -- see URL up there -- has the reaction which has a sound of dismiss. Pity, because, one is not used to that intonation coming from that house. The Eurepoean nelithic and eneolithic past should not be underestimated, because it is the predcessor of later cultures that are possible to trace in pre-Homer cultures down to the South and East: Hetites and later. The fact that, excluding the Stonehenge, in eneolithic times these cultures could not put the trace in the stone, like it is in Mykena od Troy cultures, does not mean they did not existed! The big picture tells that the origins of culture which were at a time or earlier then Old Kingdom od Egypt were good developed and existed in Central Europe like Baden_culture, Starčevac Culture and Vučedol_culture. And, by the way, the Vučedol Orion is much more precise - and older - calendar then Nebra and Stonehenge. Mak13 (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Mak13

these are full topics in their own right, Neolithic Europe and Bronze Age Europe. They are rather specialized topics, but I am not sure why you think they aren't taken seriously. dab (𒁳) 08:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)