6 ms·

My personal reaction to this statement in the article was that it seemed like an overreaching assumption. The map could have been a land separation agreement be

My personal reaction to this statement in the article was that it seemed like an overreaching assumption. The map could have been a land separation agreement between two sheep herders, or something else similarly prosaic. Not sure why we need to ascribe great importance to items that don't present any evidence of such.

Jedd 6y ago
Agreed that it may be similar to the archaeological catch-all of 'this was probably used in religious ceremonies'. OTOH for something like this to have been constructed ~3800 years ago suggests that it was probably the product of a more sophisticated kingdom than a couple of sheep herders would have had either the means or inclination to construct. That it has survived this long - well, maybe a bias, but also may indicate that it was well cared for, and stored away carefully at some point, such that it survived the next few millennia.
moioci 6y ago
But this kind of artifact must have been expensive to produce, requiring time and skill of one or more masons. I can't find the weight mentioned, but given the dimensions and the density of schist, it should be around 3000 pounds.
DocTomoe 6y ago
For all we know, there was not that much of a difference between very successful sheepherders and small princes back then - and bronze was not a common material back then. Animal skin parchment was readily available - It is a good assumption that they chose bronze because they wanted the agreement to persist for a long time, and to show it's importance.
- Jedd 6y ago
  > It is a good assumption that they chose bronze because ... Not everything made during the Bronze Age was made out of bronze. Case in point, as described in the article, this artefact was made of rock.
  - DocTomoe 6y ago
    Fair point ... I read the article, but answered based on the headline and somehow skipped the "Age"... Still, a rock slab map is a considerable investment in creating time, and remains relatively stable over time - so the basic argument still stands.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Jedd 6y ago

Agreed that it may be similar to the archaeological catch-all of 'this was probably used in religious ceremonies'. OTOH for something like this to have been constructed ~3800 years ago suggests that it was probably the product of a more sophisticated kingdom than a couple of sheep herders would have had either the means or inclination to construct. That it has survived this long - well, maybe a bias, but also may indicate that it was well cared for, and stored away carefully at some point, such that it survived the next few millennia.

moioci 6y ago

But this kind of artifact must have been expensive to produce, requiring time and skill of one or more masons. I can't find the weight mentioned, but given the dimensions and the density of schist, it should be around 3000 pounds.

DocTomoe 6y ago

For all we know, there was not that much of a difference between very successful sheepherders and small princes back then - and bronze was not a common material back then. Animal skin parchment was readily available - It is a good assumption that they chose bronze because they wanted the agreement to persist for a long time, and to show it's importance.

Jedd 6y ago
> It is a good assumption that they chose bronze because ... Not everything made during the Bronze Age was made out of bronze. Case in point, as described in the article, this artefact was made of rock.
- DocTomoe 6y ago
  Fair point ... I read the article, but answered based on the headline and somehow skipped the "Age"... Still, a rock slab map is a considerable investment in creating time, and remains relatively stable over time - so the basic argument still stands.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]