5 ms·

"Indeed, many of the seal's details, such as the intricate weaponry ornamentation and jewelry decoration, become clear only when viewed with a powerful camera l

by nyc111 9y ago

"Indeed, many of the seal's details, such as the intricate weaponry ornamentation and jewelry decoration, become clear only when viewed with a powerful camera lens and photomicroscopy." This suggests that 3000 years ago human eye was much much stronger than today and could see details that we are unable to see today. I've seen similar objects in museums with incredibly fine detail that I could not resolve (like circular seals made with clay) https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ancient-art-civilizations/ancient-near-east1/sumerian/a/cylinder-seals https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ancient-art-civilizat...

Joe-Z 9y ago
Wouldn't it be possible that the material deteriorated over time and so today it's harder to view the details than back when it was created?
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  Or they had techniques to miniaturize things. Which is not out of the question; scaling a drawing up or down can be done with pretty simple tools (this is how a couple guys in Kentucky reproduced a Nazca-style giant figure back in the 1980s, with no access to flying saucers or mystically-levitating priests).
  - michrassena 9y ago
    A pantograph is a simple machine that came along quite late. I can imagine a similar machine for carving, but I think it's quite easy to view the past with our own perspectives. The pantograph, and this speculative carving machine, are labor saving devices. I assume the Minoan sealstones were custom-made, one-of-a-kind items for those important enough to use them. While labor was cheap in most cases, those in need of this specialized skill were able to pay the cost.
- coldtea 9y ago
  No, the details were originally that small.
  - sophacles 9y ago
    I think the question is less about size than about deterioration. By analogy - old documents are hard to read sometimes because ink has faded. So the question is more like: is the size the problem or is it the fidelity?
duncanawoods 9y ago
I suspect they could have used curved polished bronze mirrors for magnification.
- nyc111 9y ago
  They may have access to a magnification technology but what would be the objection to the idea that human eye had a closer focus point 3000 years ago?
  - duncanawoods 9y ago
    I'm open minded but in terms of evolution, 3000 years is a very short time, so changes in human physical capabilities requires specific and compelling evidence. In contrast, bronze age mirrors certainly existed and noticing and leveraging the effects of non-flat surfaces seems fairly inevitable to me given you only need to look at a spoon or something.
    - irrational 9y ago
      But it could be a one off. That is, someone was born with a mutation that gave them amazing levels of visual acuity, but didn't pass on that trait to children.
  - Retric 9y ago
    3000 years is to soon for significant changes in human DNA. Every population world wide would have to have very strong selective pressure for such a change to occur. Alternatively, everyone worldwide could simply have some environmental difference resulting in changes to the eye, but that also seems unlikely.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >3000 years is to soon for significant changes in human DNA. Doesn't necessarily has to be DNA. Prevalence of fixed focus work, screens and monitors and reading, has made more people need glasses, in earlier ages, than 100 or 200 years ago for example...
Retric 9y ago
People can work on very tiny objects. Look up Diorama for a world devoted to creating intricate tiny objects.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8315313/Worlds-smallest-engraving-on-the-edge-of-a-razor-blade.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8315... - there was an excellent BBC Radio 4 program about this guy. He works at night to limit traffic vibration, has learnt to slow his heart rate, gets Botox injections to stop from blinking, it's an obsession - not altogether healthy IIRC. Very interesting.
skywhopper 9y ago
It's really hard to know how detailed we're talking about based on this quote. But details can be created without being "clear" to the naked eye. But even if they needed to be clear, I suspect there were humans alive back then as well as today who, through genetic variance or lived experience, can see the details clearly whether you or the scientists who made this find are able to.
DougWebb 9y ago
I have really bad vision; -7.0 to -7.5 in both eyes. Without glasses my focal point is about 3 inches from my face. At that range I can see quite a bit of fine detail that you'd never notice from even a foot away. In the past, before corrective lenses, I imagine 'fine jewlery maker' would be one of the few careers open to me, and that I'd be pretty good at it.
- dsnuh 9y ago
  Same here. I am -8.0 and -8.5 with about a 2"-3" focus point and I can see very intricate detail that others have trouble seeing.
- nyc111 9y ago
  So the issue is not about having a higher density of rods and cones in the eye but about the focal point (which I think should be related to the lens). The closer to the surface the eye focus the sharper the image and more details are seen.
panglott 9y ago
Some ancient cultures trained children as engravers, who, after a lifetime of peering at tiny details, probably developed eye disorders and inability to see normally. This wouldn't be permitted today.
wil421 9y ago
They couldn’t see the details because the object was 1,000s of years old, dirty and covered in limestone. Below is a link from another poster. http://magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks/recent_features/unearthingamasterpiece.html http://magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks/recent_features/unearth...
lightedman 9y ago
The ancient Greeks and Romans used glass spheres filled with water as lenses. It's possible that the Minoans could have used a small flat piece of glass with a bead of water on it to form a lens, as it would seem a logical progression from exposed lens to sealed lens so that the water would not evaporate.

by nyc111 9y ago

Joe-Z 9y ago

Wouldn't it be possible that the material deteriorated over time and so today it's harder to view the details than back when it was created?

ubernostrum 9y ago
Or they had techniques to miniaturize things. Which is not out of the question; scaling a drawing up or down can be done with pretty simple tools (this is how a couple guys in Kentucky reproduced a Nazca-style giant figure back in the 1980s, with no access to flying saucers or mystically-levitating priests).
- michrassena 9y ago
  A pantograph is a simple machine that came along quite late. I can imagine a similar machine for carving, but I think it's quite easy to view the past with our own perspectives. The pantograph, and this speculative carving machine, are labor saving devices. I assume the Minoan sealstones were custom-made, one-of-a-kind items for those important enough to use them. While labor was cheap in most cases, those in need of this specialized skill were able to pay the cost.
coldtea 9y ago
No, the details were originally that small.
- sophacles 9y ago
  I think the question is less about size than about deterioration. By analogy - old documents are hard to read sometimes because ink has faded. So the question is more like: is the size the problem or is it the fidelity?

duncanawoods 9y ago

I suspect they could have used curved polished bronze mirrors for magnification.

nyc111 9y ago
They may have access to a magnification technology but what would be the objection to the idea that human eye had a closer focus point 3000 years ago?
- duncanawoods 9y ago
  I'm open minded but in terms of evolution, 3000 years is a very short time, so changes in human physical capabilities requires specific and compelling evidence. In contrast, bronze age mirrors certainly existed and noticing and leveraging the effects of non-flat surfaces seems fairly inevitable to me given you only need to look at a spoon or something.
  - irrational 9y ago
    But it could be a one off. That is, someone was born with a mutation that gave them amazing levels of visual acuity, but didn't pass on that trait to children.
- Retric 9y ago
  3000 years is to soon for significant changes in human DNA. Every population world wide would have to have very strong selective pressure for such a change to occur. Alternatively, everyone worldwide could simply have some environmental difference resulting in changes to the eye, but that also seems unlikely.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >3000 years is to soon for significant changes in human DNA. Doesn't necessarily has to be DNA. Prevalence of fixed focus work, screens and monitors and reading, has made more people need glasses, in earlier ages, than 100 or 200 years ago for example...

Retric 9y ago

People can work on very tiny objects. Look up Diorama for a world devoted to creating intricate tiny objects.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8315313/Worlds-smallest-engraving-on-the-edge-of-a-razor-blade.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8315... - there was an excellent BBC Radio 4 program about this guy. He works at night to limit traffic vibration, has learnt to slow his heart rate, gets Botox injections to stop from blinking, it's an obsession - not altogether healthy IIRC. Very interesting.

skywhopper 9y ago

It's really hard to know how detailed we're talking about based on this quote. But details can be created without being "clear" to the naked eye. But even if they needed to be clear, I suspect there were humans alive back then as well as today who, through genetic variance or lived experience, can see the details clearly whether you or the scientists who made this find are able to.

DougWebb 9y ago

I have really bad vision; -7.0 to -7.5 in both eyes. Without glasses my focal point is about 3 inches from my face. At that range I can see quite a bit of fine detail that you'd never notice from even a foot away. In the past, before corrective lenses, I imagine 'fine jewlery maker' would be one of the few careers open to me, and that I'd be pretty good at it.

dsnuh 9y ago
Same here. I am -8.0 and -8.5 with about a 2"-3" focus point and I can see very intricate detail that others have trouble seeing.
nyc111 9y ago
So the issue is not about having a higher density of rods and cones in the eye but about the focal point (which I think should be related to the lens). The closer to the surface the eye focus the sharper the image and more details are seen.

panglott 9y ago

Some ancient cultures trained children as engravers, who, after a lifetime of peering at tiny details, probably developed eye disorders and inability to see normally. This wouldn't be permitted today.

wil421 9y ago

They couldn’t see the details because the object was 1,000s of years old, dirty and covered in limestone. Below is a link from another poster. http://magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks/recent_features/unearthingamasterpiece.html http://magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks/recent_features/unearth...

lightedman 9y ago

The ancient Greeks and Romans used glass spheres filled with water as lenses. It's possible that the Minoans could have used a small flat piece of glass with a bead of water on it to form a lens, as it would seem a logical progression from exposed lens to sealed lens so that the water would not evaporate.