Jump to content

Talk:Nebra sky disc

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vaulter (talk | contribs) at 18:51, 26 October 2021 (Calidum moved page Talk:Nebra sky disk to Talk:Nebra sky disc: per RM). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Spelling Consistency

The article refers to the subject as both a "sky disk" and a "skydisk." Logically, this should follow some consistency. 75.72.7.108 (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winking smiley-face?

Anybody else noticed that this resembles a cartoon smiley face that's winking at us? Could it be anymore blatant? ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.24.130 (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I saw it straight away and was thinking of making a silly comment about it until I discovered you already had!

IceDragon64 (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nebra Sky disk - A Record of the Earths Longest Day

I added this section to the article to help explain the possible reason for the Disk's creation as a record of the Earth's Longest Day. Ciroa felt it was too religious so I removed as many religious views from the section and shortened all Bible references but left links. 99.119.221.56 felt it lacked the same style. while I did not write the body of the original article I only composed this section to help enlighten those who had a heart for deeper understanding as to the disks creation. So in lite of 99.119.221.56 comments I tried to align the style with that of the rest of the article more informative and less personal.

the original title page was removed and a revised section was put in. This sections also was revised and updated.

However with respect to those who commented below about the original section I have left their posts intact. Fibroman

Regardless of the content, the style of the addition is suspect and needs a rewrite. Go back and look at the section you added, then compare it with the rest of the article. You'll see that the styles used are very different from each other. 99.119.221.56 (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this section that perhaps belongs to Biblical_cosmology. Would you be so kind as to include it in the appropriate article, please? Large quotes of one book should be avoided and references are NOT added at the end of the reflist tag: please, add the reference following the text of the article and surrounding it with the ref tags, like this: This is the text of the article. <ref>Text of reference goes here</ref>. Ciroa (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Wiki pals for pointing our the areas needed to make this portion of the Article more Encyclopedic. It will take me a little more time to clean it up, look up wikipedia/non wikipedia links for verification and make the weasel words more sound. I will take a copy off the page with all the points that were Highlighted to work it out here then re-post an updated/reworked section. In the mean time I removed the section for now? 13:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. TIA. 92.140.120.129 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

--- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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"

It is called relative dating.--Ciroa (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Dab, take a look at the added section "Religious Importance" and I have introduced a more plausible understanding of the disk's meaning and purpose. Once you read it I think you will agree the arch is not a boat. C John Nichols postulates that the Arch is the crystalized base of the throne of God said to be in the sides of the North. It is found recorded in Rev 4:6 And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal:... Ezk 1:22..."was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above." and "in the firmament that was above the head of the cherubims there appeared over them as it were a sapphire stone" (a crystal) Ezk10:1 It is most likely what the Bible calls the sides of the North it is the crystalline firmament God made to separate his holy abode from the darkness and sin Lucifer by his rebellion brought in, but at the side of the North there is the throne of God. The firmament contains the whole of our known universe.

The arch is placed solely on the portion of the disk to indicate which way is north. North is always depicted as up. Not understanding the religious beliefs of the Saxons, and that which is handed down through World religions the archeologist misunderstood the disk and made the arch a boat. the little lines or scratches are indicative the radiant glory (an Aura) that fills the abode of God. These Saxons are from the line of Japheth the oldest son of Noah and they had some truths that had been handed down since they scattered abroad the earth as found in Genesis 11.

The rainbow is not far fetched as John the writer of the Book of revelation said in Rev 4:3 And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald. so a rainbow placed there indicates the place of the throne once again. not only that the promise of a rainbow to ever be in the clouds of rain were a promise God would not destroy the earth again by flood Genesis 8:20-22 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease. and verified again by promise of a rainbow in Genesis 9:12, 13 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. . The use of a rainbow would indicate that to the north sat God in his glory the wavy lines radiating upward.

I believe where science and the Bible agree it is trusted truth. But I realize not everyone believes as I do. I respect scientist but sometime they are wrong because none of us is perfect. Sometimes we are to quick to dismiss the Bible as myth or folklore but then again what is the disk but part of ancient folklore. I only suggest a more plausible meaning of the disk as a recording of a spectacular solar/lunar event that took place about the time of the radiocarbon date. which just happens to coincide with a famous solar/Lunar event recorded in the Bible and in mythology and legend around the world.

Jan 22, 2011 17:36 UTC Fibroman --Fibroman (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fibroman, I apologize in advance if this offends you and I'm sorry for the effort you put on this, but I cannot let this pass. I removed the very long quote of Mr. C. John Nichols, that I honestly believe belongs to Biblical cosmology. I summarized what you wrote in the section 'Significance'. Also, please, read what I wrote in previous paragraphs about how to add a reference. Ciroa (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with your disagreement but it does not mean you are correct in your opinion. I have taken your advice into consideration for future revisions. sometimes long quotes are needed because the material is either to hard to find, not available or some wont take the time to look up the quote. The article had more to do with the disks purpose than cosmology in and of itself let alone biblical cosmology. The section was created to suggest what the purpose of the disks creation. Lets have some talk about it before you go removing quotes from posts and articles a little more communication will help us to make better and more complete articles. There is no Religious motive behind my addition to this article as noted above I used the Bible and Mr Nichols materials as well as some sites to link too for the sole purpose of verifying points and to present a religious/spiritual possibility as to the disk creation. I will deal respectfully to you so please do so with me as well, so no nutcase references are necessary OK? I could not get a talk page set up I am having difficulty with it. I did appreciate the advice above as to how to add a reference I was having trouble there. I wanted the section to be here if it is too "Biblical" for you please direct me to material that I can use that is not that will show the event as depicted on the Disk and has a dating system that matches as the Bible clearly does. The dating system of the Bible was done by a very intelligent man, Dr. Unger a highly educated man and a brilliant scholar and historian. I have been following the Nebra sky disk since its supposed discovery I have searched high and low for a meaning and significance for it as others have too. I have researched and read hundreds of articles,books,reviews and thesis papers of students from Astrophysics to religion, from University's in Texas, California and Virginia. I have had others help me with Stellar, Solar and Lunar models based on programs from event and quite possibly the same one as found in the Bible. Nothing wrong with that in itself, I like Biblical Archeology because you have a place to start from. Did you know that archeology was actually started to prove the Bible correct. And that most of the sites in the Middle East were found by using a Bible. So the Bible is not such a bad thing to use and just because something has Biblical reference does not mean it should automatically go in "Biblical Cosmology"0. This section I created was specifically about the Nebra Sky Disk's possible creation. It is just as possible/plausible as any other reason given throughout the article. If the article dealt more with cosmology I might think it best to put there but it doesn't. Your addition to significance does nothing to promote further thought on the purpose for the disk's creation. So while it points to some obscure religious ambiguity it does not link to any specifics. Hence, I will rewrite the material and submit it under a different heading. Fibroman
Well, it is worrying that you state that archeology was actually started to prove the Bible correct, because the first archaeologists worked in Italy (Rome), England and Turkey/Greece. Perhaps you should read the article on archeology. Fortunately, I did not have to touch your new work, someone else did. We eagerly await the other theories on this disk that you might have read in your studies, because the fact is that I do not dispute your findings, but your method to write encyclopedic articles and it is important for people who have read about a subject to contribute to Wikipedia. If I take one author and copy/paste his opinions... well, that's the opposite of encyclopedic. I'm sure your ample readings will allow you to cite a couple of opinions that differ from the lonely one you're presenting for readers to be able to reach the widest possible set of positions on an issue. For the huge majority of archaeologists (and many jew/christians/muslims believers), I think, the Bible is a religious book, not the source of encyclopedic content, unless you're talking about judeo/christian religion. I did not mention the Bible in my previous post. I would say the same if you quoted extensively the Qur'an to explain the significance of this object or, as a matter of fact, the New York Times.--Ciroa (talk) 09:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Mr Ameriturd (expletive removed remember children read these discussions), German police are not stormtroopers. -- 77.190.218.151 (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Recent BBC article

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

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)

You are correct the disk was possibly sewn with leather onto a breastplate to be worn by the Religious or Tribal Leader. But being a craftsman of sorts myself the fact that the holes are pierced through the golden areas suggest the purpose for the addition of the holes to the disk came sometime later and was not part of the original idea for the disk. If the holes had been part of the original design it makes sense to leave a bit of border for placing the holes and not pierce central parts to the design like the golden arches to each side or the gold arch which signifies which direction the disk would be place north. I believe the Photo in the disk is currently upside down to how it was originally viewed. Furthermore, there is a great possibility this disk was not made by the Saxon at all but they may be responsible for some repair (hence different gold)and are quite responsible for the holes. Most likely the disk could be war booty taken from another tribe who got it from another. The arches on the sides were not part of the original design but were added along with a Rainbow arch shortly thereafter to direct the observer to the North. So that the stars, moon and sun can be seen as they were when the disk was made for the purpose of recording the longest day in history (or night depending on where you were).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

I'm a very old man now and will die soon. Like my compatriot Nicolae said (don't believe the ugly lies people tell about him! I had a job then!), there will be a better day again. I cannot believe it: how stupid this Germans are. You can sell them your baby daughters shoes and they will think the shoes are 10,000 years old. This foulish and aggressive people. It is only the second time I use this Internet, but it is a good thing. Well, people always talking about it. All this modern stuff but they don't recognize that my sky disk is a forgery. --BucharestBoy (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt very seriously being a poor man without work you would have wasted the gold on such a foolish prank at no profit to yourself.
--Fibroman 11:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

2.2Kg of gold- really?

IceDragon64 (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

Resolution of lawsuits?

The copyright lawsuits are interesting, but at least one of them ought to have been resolved by now. Anyone know? Ken K (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that it was possible to put a copyright on the design of something that is over 100 years old. The exact copy of the design of something that old should be public domain,but any new variation could be copyrighted. It is sad to think people will use such an important find that supports recorded history for personal gain. But such is the world.--Fibroman

If that be a Crescent, then the other be a Full Moon

Simple fact, observable by anyone: the Moon is lit by the Sun, therefore a Crescent would have its centres of arc away from the Sun, not toward it. Thus, if that be a Crescent, then the other be a Full Moon, not the Sun. It is highly unlikely that the makers of this Disc could have got it wrong.AptitudeDesign (talk) 10:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you were replying to the text above, I've deleted it as this is not a forum to discuss the disc. You'll need reliable sources to verify that such sources agree with you. Dougweller (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have a fair point. I don't accept that it MUST be the sun- after all when the sun is there, you can't see the stars and yes, indeed, the crescent moon should be the other way if it were the sun. IceDragon64 (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Needs updating

This really needs enhancing and updating. We need to show Schlosser's views more fully, but also those of the other main players. The German version has some stuff we don't have.[1]

It has Miranda Aldhouse Green's views, using [2] as a source so I guess that can be more or less copied from there, but they are fairly old.

The Zur Navigation springenZum Content springenLandesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt / Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte[3] has lot of information - view it in Chrome and you'll get an automatic translation of the pages.

There's quite a few bad sources on Google, but [4] is The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age with a short bit by Harald Meller, one of the major researchers as well as comments by other authors. It adds a 5th phase when it was "irrevocably removed from circulation". There's a 2011 paper by Schlosser[5]. Google scholar has more. Dougweller (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery -location not orientation and relevence

In the section about Discovery a statement is made that the orientation makes the sun set behind a particular mountain- surely it is the location of the site, not the orientation that does this? I might have changed it myself, but I think the whole statement should be removed as irrelevant to this article about the skydisc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IceDragon64 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That section is astronomically illiterate in every way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.21.28 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few things

First, how do they know that the disc doesn't go the other way up? It looks like it ought to be turned 180deg to me. I'd also doubt the sun-barge idea. Seems more like a line connecting the full moon and the crescent moon, to indicate the transformation of one into the other. As for all the frantic search for its "meaning", like always, I can't help but wonder if any of them considered that perhaps it was a mere decoration, perhaps to adorn the person of the tribal shaman, or whatever you want to call it, who put great faith in the moon and stars as portents and omens, etc? It doesn't always have to MEAN something, or contain some great secret or clue. Maybe them maker just thought it looked pretty. Maybe a later mans primitive artistic senses were piqued, and he felt that adding a couple random golden strips to the side would make it look nicer...what we'd call "balanced" nowadays. As for the related finds, is it normal to find Bronze Age swords in such pristine condition? Seems like most I've even seen were pretty badly corroded, but these look like they could have been built 200 years ago..45Colt 20:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) This is bronze, not iron. Means it is very resistant to corrosion.
2) Interpretation of archaeological findings is always a bit speculative, but in this case there is strong evidence that the disc really was a "pocket-version" of Stonehenge. It also seems to be possible that the later additions were connected to a change of usage - perhaps first a star chart (Pleiades), then a calendar (the "random golden strips" are set in the exact degrees of the solstiches at Nebra) and in the last stage as a cult object like the sun chariot of Trundholm.
3) By the way, how do you define "primitive artistic senses"? 2003:7A:8E10:8591:B0CE:BE3F:BBC8:B2B2 (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, what you are indulging in, is what we call at Wiki "Original Research" (OR). Of course, there's nothing wrong with that on the face of it, but Wikipedia is more than a platform for publishing opinions.
The orientation of the disk, if it's to be compared with the sky, doesn't matter. The Moon and stars too can be viewed from a variety of positions, even rotated "180deg" as you say.
It's a trope among archaeologists to assume that the meaning of a curious artifact is a "ritual object", which is a safe (or essentially non-falsifiable) guess because the context has vanished.
Kortoso (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nebra sky disk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DIspute over new dating

The State Office for Monument Preservation and Archeology Saxony-Anhalt h as issued the following press release.[6]

"In an article by Rupert Gebhard and Rüdiger Krause, published today in the journal "Archäologische Informations", it is postulated that the Nebra Sky Disc, which is dated to the Early Bronze Age (around 1600 BC), would only be dated 1000 years later to the Iron Age. The colleagues not only ignore the abundance of published research results in recent years, their various arguments also are easily refuted. Gebhard and Krause put forward several key points as a platform for this thesis.

In particular, the correlation of the Sky Disc with the other discoveries of the hoard, whose Bronze Age age is not in question, is put in doubt. Claims are that the soil attachments on the Sky Disc do not correspond with those of the other findings and that the geochemical analyzes of the metals do not support their coherence.

Both of these statements are demonstrably incorrect. According to an essay by Dr. Jörg Adam (then State Office of Criminal Investigation of Brandenburg), who conducted the investigations of the soil attachments for the Regional Court of Halle as an expert, and who was not quoted by the two authors, "altogether ... therefore an origin of both the soil attachments on the Sky Disc (Sp 1) and on the sword (Sp 2) from their presumed location (the extraction point of VM 1) is to be regarded as very probable ... An exceptional position is occupied by the soil attachments on the ax (column 3). A large proportion of the properties and characteristics determined, also indicate that the origin of these soil attachments from the Mittelberg appear probable «. Since the inquiry of the court of first instance was limited to these three objects back then, the other accompanying findings were not examined by the expert at the time and therefore should not be used as an argument against the coherence of all the finds. In view of this, the claim of the two authors that the chisel must be separated as not belonging to the hoard, is not comprehensible.

Furthermore, the statement that the geochemical analysis of the metals argues against the coherence of the findings is misleading. Already in 2008 and 2010 Prof. Dr. Ernst Pernicka and other colleagues demonstrated "that the copper of all parts of the hoard comes from the same storage location". The Mitterberg in the Salzburg region has long been proven to be a deposit whose copper production ended at the beginning of the 1st millennium BC. In addition, Pernicka states: "Analyzes of Celtic [Iron Age] copper alloys show quite different compositions of the main components as well as trace elements and lead isotope ratios". Therefore, from a metallurgical point of view, dating the Sky Disc to the Iron Age is clearly out of the question.

A final argument put forward by Gebhard and Krause is that the Nebra Sky Disc appeared as "a perfect foreign object" in the symbolism of that period. While this is true, this also applies to every unique discovery. The Sky Disc of Nebra would be a foreign object in any prehistoric period.

That is a logical fallacy founded on a circular argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.21.28 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Due to lack of space, we refrain from discussing the many other inconsistencies in the content of the article here.'We would be happy to provide you with the above publications for your further information as downloads:

Jörg Adam, Forensic Investigation of Earth Attachments on the Sky Disc. In: Harald Meller / François Bertemes (eds.), The departure to new horizons. New perspectives on the European Early Bronze Age. Final conference of the FOR550 research group from November 26th to 29th, 2010 in Halle (Saale). Conferences of the State Museum of Prehistory in Hall 19 (Halle [Saale] 2019).[7]

Ernst Pernicka / Christian-Heinrich Wunderlich / Alfred Reichenberger / Harald Meller / Gregor Borg, On the authenticity of the Nebra sky disk - a brief summary of the investigations carried out. Archaeological correspondence sheet 38 (2008) 331–352.[8]

Ernst Pernicka, Archaeometallurgical investigations on and on the hoard of Nebra. In: Harald Meller / François Bertemes (eds.), The reach for the stars. International symposium in Halle (Saale) 16. – 21. February 2005. Conferences of the State Museum for Prehistory Hall 5 (Halle [Saale] 2010).[9]

Ernst Pernicka / Joachim Lutz / Thomas Stöllner, Bronze Age Copper Produced at Mitterberg, Austria, and its Distribution. Archaeologia Austriaca 100 (2016) 19–55.[10] Doug Weller talk 11:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The enclosure is oriented in such a way that the sun seems to set every solstice behind the Brocken ... some 80 km to the north-west

That makes absolutely no sense and is evidence of astronomical illiteracy. The 2 solstices differ fundamentally, and at the winter solstice, the sun cannot possibly set in the north-west.

Please sign your posts with four tildes ~ Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 October 2021

Nebra sky disk → Nebra sky disc – The whole article is written in British English, and disc is the common British spelling used in most non-US sources e.g. BBC, i News, Art Newspaper. Other sources such as [11] use both spellings inconsistently, but it makes no sense for an article title to use US terminology, but the article itself to use UK spellings. As the artifact is from Germany, we would usually default to UK spellings (as Western Europe generally use British English). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nebra_sky_disc&oldid=1051991171"