The ancient navigators

I apologise to the thread for acting like a child and arguing back, we are all old enough to make up our own minds.

I Agree that Harte is a treasure to the site and for that reason I can take a bit of chaff now and then from him, come on he enjoys it as well.

Also on occasion in the past I HAVE been wrong, I do no hold that to be the case here however, that however is another debate and I am open to a genuine persuasive argument to change my mind on that.

Debate is lively and is one of the nice things about this site, we all get a bit frustrated sometimes as well but it is sad when someone as we have seen among other members sometimes loses the plot entirely, that is not happening here or at least I for one do not believe that it is and my dry humour toward Harte is unlikely to give him a coronary after all it's me with the dicky ticker, I fully believe he is actually enjoying himself (though I do not know him on a personal basis but he obviously responded) and always has to have the last word (right or wrong haha - sometimes I am a bit like that myself so pot calling the kettle black), so I shall disappear for a bit unless an interesting turn of event's on the thread brings me back.

Once again sorry all IF you feel 'I' or 'WE' have in any way deflected from the thread, the subject is a fascinating one and so much better than politics (I actually started by pointing out that Harte was not so bad so was not intending to debate him and was semi defending him).

I will also point out that Harte will usually use peer reviewed or otherwise impeccable sources if he chooses to back up his own statements while I am not so choosy so his quality of information sources is often better but better is not always more accurate even if that IS the general rule of thumb on any subject matter, he also undoubtedly knows a lot more about Archaeology than I do being someone whom while not an expert in the field HAS done some and even knows enough to teach his students on the subject.

So by that I point out that I mean no harm toward his reputation or his profession it is merely a debate about what we do and do not believe and we both started to act like kid's with snide comment's but it was fun.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Harte

Harte you are old enough to know better than to talk out of the hat you are sitting on so grow up a little will you, your problem is that you can never accept when you are wrong.

There are plenty of archeologically sites that ARE off limits there, unless you bribe the guards as Egypt is renowned for such corruption BUT other than a possible pyramid foundation that may or may not have had a pyramid upon it in antiquity and had a downward passage partially build similar to that of the Extant Giza pyramids, a passage that is open to the sky with some odd features that were ignored for a very long time and that was used by an Egyptian military base that was based around it as there midden tip through much of the twentieth century I know of NO sites that are locked down by the military there.

Archaeology sites are off limits to curious passers-by all over the planet.
Don't tell me you can't imagine why.
No site in Egypt is off limits to qualified professionals that want to investigate it. You can find such sites in China though.

That's why, when an amateur says they visited a "forbidden site", you should understand that to mean a site "forbidden to amateurs".

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: LABTECH767

An acquaintance of mine said that their friends were geologists who have just retired, during their career they had access to some of these forbidden sites in Egypt. They are sure that something catastrophic happened, that ended a very advanced civilization.

Your acquaintance is lying to you. LOL Or to be more germane; I was told that those folks by my acquaintance (who by the way is better looking than yours) that those geologists were taken to joke sites to deflect them away from the REAL secret stuff which has to do with Giant flying saucers carrying yogurt recipes. Now is my 'friends' info superior to yours?

Isn't it always amazing that the crucial information that will change the world is always given by nameless people? Chuckle.

Catastrophic Earthquakes probably did happen around the time of the Younger Dryas, and world wide.

What surprises me about Archaeology's perception of monuments, is the ever present expectation that the builder of the monument would build at a location they had simply drawn out of a hat, or thrown a dart board at a map and decided to "build here".

The expectation is that they wouldn't choose a site that was already important.

Spend gadzooks of their era's currency building an awesome monument, at a location that has no cultural significance for them? (apart from the monument they will construct there)

It's understandable for us to think this, because the site has cultural significance now. But there was a moment in history when it either

A: Had no significance at all.

or

B: Had significance, but not due to the monument being there (since it hadn't been built yet.)

Someone had to decide to build a monument there. But it is not allowed for them to have had any cultural, or historical reason for choosing it (by which I mean history prior to themselves) .

"Forbidden sites". The only ones where this applies are those that are on Egyptian military posts (most of which were originally built by the Ottomans or British - especially firing ranges (when you have tens of thousands of years of history in an area - its hard not to build stuff over existing sites). Especially when those sites have not been excavated.

WHY would these forbidden sites then be allowed to be visited by some yahoos? Kinda stupid of the evil conspiracy isn't it?

Archaeology is big business in Egypt. And the government plies it as such. Of course any yahoo might be allowed to visit, for a price.

And also as a means to gauging what the tourism value of the site might be later on. Everything in Egypt will be properly excavated someday, but the ones most likely to generate tourism revenue take priority now, and the ones less likely to generate revenue are best left entirely untouched, so they don't get messed up.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

What annoys me is when geologists bow to Archaeologists as if the Archaeologists are better at determining dates or something as has occurred in the past on several occasions despite the fact that Geologists are actually more scientific in most instances though arguably they are both working by opinion and there is argument that the Geologists do get it wrong such as tree stumps in situ standing upright in stratified layers that the geologists would have you believe were sedimentary layers millions of years old or at the least hundreds of thousands but the tree is of course only hundreds at most and probably just decades old yet it's stump standing still upright pierces lots of those layers so something is cockeyed there.

Basically the most annoying thing is that when all is said and done they DONT know they have OPINION and like us were not there to whiteness it, that said Archaeology is an important field, it does work well but is NOT perfect and is less and less accurate the further back in time it goes with only really dependable accuracy were both historical record and context and finds can be shown to align perfectly but beyond that anything prehistoric is simply opinion and often rhetoric at best with one man building his theory on top of another mans theory like some house of cards they are all afraid some conspiracy theorist is going to pull the badly placed card out of and so fearing that collapse of there paradigm they will fight tooth and nail to support there pet theory and paint it as an immutable fact.

If we want to go back on topic: do you think the Torquetum was invented by Aristothenes? Or do you think he found it in one of the many books the library kept?

Could an extremely ancient civilization have had the technology to determine longitude, long prior to the invention of reliable clocks?

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

What annoys me is when geologists bow to Archaeologists as if the Archaeologists are better at determining dates or something as has occurred in the past on several occasions despite the fact that Geologists are actually more scientific in most instances though arguably they are both working by opinion and there is argument that the Geologists do get it wrong such as tree stumps in situ standing upright in stratified layers that the geologists would have you believe were sedimentary layers millions of years old or at the least hundreds of thousands but the tree is of course only hundreds at most and probably just decades old yet it's stump standing still upright pierces lots of those layers so something is cockeyed there.

Hard science tends to be easier to believe than soft science.

For example: I am much comforted when it comes to the boat pits at the GP, knowing the wood was dated by Carbon dating, and so we certainly know the ships were interred during the lifetime of Khufu.

But the social side of archaeology tends strongly toward looking for neat narratives. And history isn't made up of those. History is sloppy. Real histories don't flow like the plot of a fiction novel.

I'm simultaneously happy to admit the boat pits were put there by Khufu, and the casing stones, and the worker city. And yet convinced the Sphinx is probably a recycled monument from times past. And I suspect the lower chamber of the GP was left unfinished precisely because it had already been there, and already had a history. Left unfinished out of reverence for less sophisticated predecessors.


I'm still a bit on the fence about the grand gallery.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
If we want to go back on topic: do you think the Torquetum was invented by Aristothenes? Or do you think he found it in one of the many books the library kept?

No. That instrument dates no earlier that the 12th Century AD.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelousCould an extremely ancient civilization have had the technology to determine longitude, long prior to the invention of reliable clocks?

No. And you can't use the torquetum to establish longitude.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

What annoys me is when geologists bow to Archaeologists as if the Archaeologists are better at determining dates or something as has occurred in the past on several occasions despite the fact that Geologists are actually more scientific in most instances though arguably they are both working by opinion and there is argument that the Geologists do get it wrong such as tree stumps in situ standing upright in stratified layers that the geologists would have you believe were sedimentary layers millions of years old or at the least hundreds of thousands but the tree is of course only hundreds at most and probably just decades old yet it's stump standing still upright pierces lots of those layers so something is cockeyed there.

You probably should consider consulting sources on this that are NOT Creationist.
en.wikipedia.org...

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

You probably should consider consulting sources on this that are NOT Creationist.
en.wikipedia.org...

Harte

The term 'Creationist' is so old hat I recommend the use of, 'Non-pagan scientific illiterates', instead.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
If we want to go back on topic: do you think the Torquetum was invented by Aristothenes? Or do you think he found it in one of the many books the library kept?

No. That instrument dates no earlier that the 12th Century AD.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelousCould an extremely ancient civilization have had the technology to determine longitude, long prior to the invention of reliable clocks?

No. And you can't use the torquetum to establish longitude.

You're right. I confused the words "Tanawa" and "Torquetum".

Apparently the purpose of the "Tanawa" was to allow you to accurately measure the Moon's position in the sky, and then knowing what day it is, you could calculate what hour it was by looking at the stars behind the Moon.

Knowing the correct time is what allows navigators to determine their longitude (unless they have GPS, in which case they would use that today.)

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
If we want to go back on topic: do you think the Torquetum was invented by Aristothenes? Or do you think he found it in one of the many books the library kept?

No. That instrument dates no earlier that the 12th Century AD.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelousCould an extremely ancient civilization have had the technology to determine longitude, long prior to the invention of reliable clocks?

No. And you can't use the torquetum to establish longitude.

You're right. I confused the words "Tanawa" and "Torquetum".

Apparently the purpose of the "Tanawa" was to allow you to accurately measure the Moon's position in the sky, and then knowing what day it is, you could calculate what hour it was by looking at the stars behind the Moon.

Knowing the correct time is what allows navigators to determine their longitude (unless they have GPS, in which case they would use that today.)

In order to find longitude on a trip, you have to know what time it is at a different, known, longitude - such as the longitude of the spot your trip began from - at the moment of your observation.
You also have to have a system of latitude and longitude, which the ancients certainly didn't have.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

The ancients may have compared notes on the time of day a full solar eclipse occurred.
But that is an interesting observation you make about claiming certainty.
I recently visited no less than 6 county and city government offices to clarify a simple survey recently.
Only one or two were willing to consider the possibility of the surveyors shorthand describing an important anchor point.
People rather see the rifle that killed JFK than the truth.

originally posted by: fromunclexcommunicate
a reply to: Harte

The ancients may have compared notes on the time of day a full solar eclipse occurred.

That cannot help, unless the path of the eclipse is at least close to East-West.
But even then. it doesn't help at all on the open sea.

originally posted by: fromunclexcommunicateBut that is an interesting observation you make about claiming certainty.

Ancient societies could write, and there's this thing called oral tradition as well.
Ancient societies did not have anything like a system of latitude and longitude.
There were a few grid systems proposed in late antiquity though, but obviously that can't help on the open sea either.

Harte

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Well I will freely admit you go well over my head on that one, given that he was either a genius mathematician (and practical one that measured the circumference of the planet so also in our term's an engineer?) it is likely he did invent it OR did he have access to older knowledge?, some of them such as Solon for example or rather Plato's ACCOUNT of Solon which may or may not have been truth suggest they did have access to some older knowledge in the form of contact with Egypt that for example the story of Atlantis claims had detailed ancient knowledge dating back even longer than we currently accept Egypt existed.

And as for machines, what did the ancient Egyptians know?, Egyptologists would suggest they used primitive bronze and later copper tool's to create some of the very greatest monuments in there history while the later Egyptians whom had access to Iron and Steel apparently did not even come close to the quality of the earlier creations.

The Dendera lightbulb for instance which Egyptologists and Archaeologists will tell you is just a ceremonial representation of a Lotus flower.

And while some of there most spectacular creations are NOT there giant ones but more ordinary every day objects such as Diorite pots and vessels made of a stone harder than granite that were NOT created in the later periods of Egyptian civilization (I may be wrong on that one I seem to recall seeing a Diorite statue that was definitely a later creation from the sunken Egyptian city) but seem to be among the oldest objects they also had the ability to exquisitely work soft stone such as Schist (Though that is therefore easily explained but why such shape as this artefact).
(whatever it is and it look's like a model of a mechanical part but is too fragile to be such the Schist Disc is claimed to be an incense burner by Egyptologists but I mean WHY?, would a standard shape of a bowl not do?).

The Schist Disc I am sure you are familiar with that one.

And of course it is not alone in suggesting that we may be VERY wrong about our history or at least the mainstream whom reject other theory's about the Past may very well be completely wrong and perhaps DELIBERATELY SO since from the 1700's a well known cult inspired by Voltaire has sought actively to rewrite history and waged a hidden war at first against the church but later against all religion not it's own (And it is a religion not to name it even if most of it's members do not realize they are inside a CULT one whose greasy tentacles have reached into every facet of the academic and scientific world including the Pseudo sciences such as Archaeology which is basically a collection of OPINIONS and claim's often very well constructed and sometimes but NOT always correct).

Such as the Bagdad Battery, it may have been indeed what it is claimed to be and may have been used to electroplate ancient ornaments and jewellery but that is purely subjective since no one knows what it really was however recreations DO generate electricity when wine of vinegar are introduced to the pot.

Or the the Kosovo Transformer (I am VERY dubious about this one it is claimed to be a 20.000 year old electrical transformer but it look's very modern to me, however what if? - the date still feel's wrong to me as I would believe that if it WAS an ancient artefact of that type it would likely be much older or I am sure we would have a lot more artefacts from such a relatively recent period despite human nature and robbing out or reusing anything we can, metal would be melted down for instance and a load of copper wiring would not have lasted long when humans re-learned to make copper item's out of it but I mean how many medieval castles are left intact? and they are just a few hundred years old, how many swords from that period missed out on being melted down and turned into horse shoes or door knockers etc).

So I am open to the idea that ancient knowledge of a technical kind DOES or DID exist, of course Hindu's will claim there religious text contains just that but Harte once proved a point that the most technical one the Vaimanika Shastra was only actually written in the early 20th century so is not even that old at all and worse was a Channelled Text transcribed apparently by some guy in a trance so we can regard that as not evidence at all interesting though it may be.

Which leaves us at an impasse of sorts and it falls to one's own personal belief, now me I am a creationist so the idea that the Pre Deluge world may have been even more advanced than we are is not an odd idea, some of that knowledge surviving or having been saved by survivors of that deluge is also not that odd an idea but it would likely NOT be enough to inspire that Greek scholar, however think of the Antikythera mechanism and it's complexity, the fact that the ratio's of the GREAT pyramid suggest that someone before Aristophanes had already figured it all out long before he did or was later accredited with doing so then it is indeed possible that he did learn from an older source, however if a human before him did it he may have independently simple done it again and his reputation therefore is an earned one as he therefore does deserve the credit even if an earlier person at some forgotten epoch DID do it all before.

I'll leave out other artefacts such as the Saqqara bird, boomerangs in the boy king Tut's tomb and many other oddities just from Egypt alone.
(Egyptologists would probably claim those boomerangs were ceremonial wheat scythe's or some crap like that - they and the Archaeologists do not want to face the rewriting of history that accepting the Gosford glyph's as real and genuine Egyptian writing would cause them to have to do OR the careers based on lies it may shake up among some even though it is hardly fringe anything and just proves that Someone got there before us - as if the Australian native people were not already there, it is a similar case with them having to scrap the Clovis first theory over in the states, they like to cling to debunked truth's and deny the real truth when it comes and bites them until it is no longer deniable).



Sadly the Gimpy Pyramid was demolished so we will never know how Egyptian that really was and there may be evidence of ancient Chinese and Indian Hindu influence in Australia as well.

a reply to: Harte

According to the internet, Babylonian astronomers were able to accurately predict lunar eclipses sometime around 700 BC.
No mention of a prediction for Amarna in 1338 BC except some anecdotal oral prophecy that doesn't appear viable. But I've underestimated the ancients powers of predictions before and the ability to predict where and when the moon,sun and planets should be is key to any kind of useful latitude longitude system.

The video on page 1 talks about the device Maui supposedly used to calculate longitude starting at the 12 minute mark. The device was interpreted to have a pendulum weight stabilization for shipboard use. I was envisioning something bigger with an integrated water clock reservoir on the top of the weight (so your floats would be visible right there with your sight lines). No zodiac calculation that I could see but you would need to be able to predict where the moon (should be) for a given longitude on your current date and at the number of hours after local sunset within a minute or so at the time you record the angle.

Very few ships would have carried the Antikythera device 80 BC and a Maui device would be equally rare and unknown.
Homer was mumbling about the Metonic cycle 700 BC but very few people heard at the time.
Probably why they labeled the Dali painting (after) the Apothesis of Homer?

a reply to: fromunclexcommunicate

Harte says you can't get longitude without a clock. But the rising of the stars and the position of the moon and the sun are the hands of a celestial clock. Better than a mechanical clock as it's the real thing, not a proxy. All the angles are peculiar to your position on the globe at that particular time of the year.
So the question would be how much did the ancient navigators know, did they just calculate in degrees or minutes and seconds. Because if they calculated in Minutes of arc, they must have had some way to do the timing, as they would have known that a degree is sixty nautical miles on the earth's surface measured from its center anywhere on the surface. Which makes a minute as a sixtieth of that which is, of course, one nautical mile.

a reply to: anonentity

I'm not sure what Harte participated in this thread for, if it wasn't something interesting in the video.
The video talks about the analysis of the Maui device cave drawing by someone using the pen
Srommel(easy to verify if you spend a minute to skim the video).

That was probably meant to be an esoteric link to the BOTRISPTFTSBRU.
B as in "Bridge" on December 13 which in turn leads to the Saros cycle.

Its thought that Herodotus understood they used the Saros cycle to predict the eclipse at Thales May 28, 585 B.C.
That was long before any CIA operations in Nicaragua.

For math Geeks there is an interesting algebra problem to solve there if you don't smoke too much K2 with Nietzsche.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: fromunclexcommunicate

Harte says you can't get longitude without a clock. But the rising of the stars and the position of the moon and the sun are the hands of a celestial clock. Better than a mechanical clock as it's the real thing, not a proxy. All the angles are peculiar to your position on the globe at that particular time of the year.

Harte points out that, although you can tell time at sea, you can't get your longitude from what time it is.

Harte thinks you need to learn about how longitude is calculated.

Harte

originally posted by: fromunclexcommunicate
a reply to: anonentity

I'm not sure what Harte participated in this thread for, if it wasn't something interesting in the video.

IIRC, I was called into this thread.

Check back and see for yourself. I'm too lazy to do it and I don't really care.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

I know how to calculate longitude, I have a set of tables and a sextant and the ability to find the time at the prime meridian. But what if I did not have them plus they will wear out and the tables get out of date. You have to have a backup in your head a plan B. Just like a Polynesian navigator. The backup would have been what they used.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: fromunclexcommunicate

Harte says you can't get longitude without a clock. But the rising of the stars and the position of the moon and the sun are the hands of a celestial clock. Better than a mechanical clock as it's the real thing, not a proxy. All the angles are peculiar to your position on the globe at that particular time of the year.

Harte points out that, although you can tell time at sea, you can't get your longitude from what time it is.

Harte thinks you need to learn about how longitude is calculated.

Harte

There is a way to measure longitude without a clock but it requires that you can observe the full moon when you are near the equator (don't recall the 'safe area'). Not to sure how useful that would be in the real world and it would be difficult to do in a bobbing boat but is possible if on land and have a stable base and accurate enough equipment and have a previously obtain information on the angles of the moon and a star that can be observed.

academic.oup.com...

a reply to: Hanslune

When all is said and done, do you really need longitude except for placing a landmass on a map? Lattitude is easy enough to work out, then all you have to do is decide if it's left or right. In the old sailing ships from Britain, it was sail south till the butter melts and then turn right. You always ended up in the Caribean as long as you didn't sink.

a reply to: anonentity

The video explanation of the Pacific cave drawing seemed fabricated to sell the idea of eclipse predictions by early Egyptians rather than a useful navigation device that would have been used by Maui. Longitude was measured using eclipses and even much later in Da Vinci's century, globes and longitude determination were the scientific endeavors of the day so the cave drawing might have been a tribute to Maui from a later century.

Back in my early teens I was sentenced to an Outward Bound expedition presumably to row heavy dories several miles to an island exile and camp. Naturally I chose the tarp to take in our boat, and we did arrive at the island ahead of the other dories with no blisters but not by the margin I predicted. I learned my mistake was probably due top something called "hull speed" which prevents stronger winds from increasing craft speed in a linear fashion.

With a large mid Atlantic ridge to the north of the tropics its possible the distance for the journeys from west Africa to the Caribbean and further west to Central America might have been fairly easy to determine. They would have been running close to their hull speeds blown by the strong easterlies most of the way. But you can't get that from the legends of Quetzalcoatl.