Within naked eye/visual/astronomy related environment
What was perceivable (and a little more in case we don't know what
they perceived) by Neolithic people?
Cosmology in this handbook/website is about how people perceive the world (so not
the strict scientific idea around how the universe
started/evolved). Two aspects of cosmology are important:
How do people experience/perceive the world/universe:
religions/worldviews/etc. This has no relation if this
perception can be explained scientifically.
If scientific models can support/explain the cosmological
ideas that people developed.
This handbook is more about the second aspects.
The level of detail:
that what is enough to understand what
Neolithic/Bronze/Iron/Middle age people would experience.
that what is enough to do some calculations by head, provide
hints and stimulate intuition
if theory is described somewhere else, it will not be repeated
only referred to (except when it enhances above understanding
very much):
no difficult formula (only plus and minus allowed? or is
sin/cos/tan allowed)
no transformation formula
no details need to be discussed that can't be experience
with naked eye observations
using the least number of different references
Basic essential understanding subjects
Duffett-Smith [1990] gives astronomical code (too much detail), but
his introductions to each routine might be at the correct
level. Ruggles' [1999] boxes give ideas what he sees important.
Also follow the methodology of Schaeffer.
Assuming present-scientific models (which makes a
past celestial picture) are accurate enough to determine
the past sky, its past celestial picture hopefully
can be used understand how the views, earlier-scientific
models, non-scientific models, cosmology, and myths was done. Of
course the present day model is still not 100% correct, but
hopefully its past celestial picture is correct enough to
still show the past sky and thus understand how this past
sky was modelled in the former models.
Difference between methodological and ontological materialism.
And in this handbook methodological materialism is used with
regard to non-present-scientific models.
Basic subjects are:
archaeology
carbon dating
surveys, (north arrow)
astronomy
celestial/geographic spheres
time TT (time used in ephemerides), UT (time without leap
seconds), UTC (normal clock time at longitude=0, with leap
seconds), DeltaT (=TT-UT), timezones
night/day vision, averted vision
cycles and their interaction (harmonic sum)
ephemeris ideas (model of reality, should include everything
known to simulate reality as best as possible)
Statistics
Type of tools
There are different tools:
tools that might have been used by
Neolithic people.
tools in antiquity,
instruments of present day (say
cheap/poorman’s tools) and
At this moment I would prefer to see the priority
from 1 to 5. And also more detail for Tool1 than for
Tool5.
The configuration under study
inter and intra building
backsight/foresight:
in sky: observational astronomy (real/virtual)
on land: geographical (real/virtual)
sky/land combination: reappearing/window/etc
in archaeology: artefacts, art depiction
calendars
measurement tools: compass, altimeter, ruler, etc.
cheap enough tools to determine configuration: workflow
other tools: GIS, theodolite, electronic distance meter (EDM),
Configuration's relation with the real world
observation location
directed to horizon/main mountain (representing god/etc.)
directed to certain celestial events: Moon&Sun
(set/rise/transit/zenith/crossover/equinox/standstills/eclipses),
planet (types/rise/set/heliacal), stars
(rise/set/heliacal/types/phases)
plant/animal migration
limits of human perceptions/size/etc.
difference in perception value and scientific values (for
isntance: distance; color; size; sound level; etc. perception
value are not one to one to the scientific value): Moon illusion
and perceived sound levels depending on frequency are examples
comparing and error evaluation, incl dating archaeology
pitfalls, risks
tool to test: apps, spreadsheet, workflow,
Modern theory behind all the above
How deep to go. Don't know yet. But it should be enough to have a
grasp of the principles
main theories directly need to make above work/understand
(e.g. harmonic sum)
theories indirectly need to make above work/understand
statistical theories
supporting/fundamental theories for the main theories
scientific methodologies
myths/sagas/'old theories'
Code/mechanics behind the tools
Hand or machine driven procedures? I would think using modern
tools.
How deep to go. Don't know yet. But it should be enough to have a
grasp of the principles
mechanism of horizon profiles/etc.
making programming lines for calculator/computer/etc.
Home
Up
Search
Mail