8 ms·

Ancient calendar, recently discovered, may document a long-ago disaster

88 points by diodorus 2y ago

neonate 2y ago
https://archive.ph/wlrau https://archive.ph/wlrau
torlok 2y ago
Can't wait to hear what archaeologists have to day about this interpretation. This is a fun topic to speculate about. Meanwhile, in case anybody's interested, the Younger Dryas hypothesis is controversial, not widely accepted by the experts, and dr Sweatman appears to be a Chemical Engineer, not an Archeologist. Not that it discredits his findings, of course.
- debacle 2y ago
  I haven't researched, but I watch the guys on Rogan who talk about Younger Dryas. What are the arguments for/against?
  - taejavu 2y ago
    Sounds like you might benefit from doing some research
    - mhuffman 2y ago
      What better places do you recommend for research links? HN is known for being full of experts that might give high quality pointers to pro/con arguments.
      - mathgorges 2y ago
        My general strategy is to find a community where $domainExperts hang out and figure out how they talk about $interestingThing, then refine my search from there using progressively more professional lingo. Here's an example of what my first query for this topic might be: https://kagi.com/search?q=site%3Areddit.com%2Fr%2Faskhistorians+Younger+Dryas&r=us&sh=5-0E-UDPF1fgbbYs86QYtA https://kagi.com/search?q=site%3Areddit.com%2Fr%2Faskhistori...
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - lm28469 2y ago
    > the guys on Rogan They are entertainers on an entertaining platform, and the quality went way down the drain in the last 5 years. It's like watching someone slowly developing dementia Between this dude: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ27ZtInsmo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ27ZtInsmo and Peterson I would advise you to look for new sources lmao
- kragen 2y ago
  to disambiguate, it is not at all controversial that the younger dryas was a thousand-year-long ice age in the northern hemisphere at the relevant time; that is universally accepted by the experts. what is 'controversial and not widely accepted by relevant experts' is the comet impact hypothesis which the nyt presents as an accepted fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesi...
  - tivert 2y ago
    > what is 'controversial and not widely accepted by relevant experts' is the comet impact hypothesis which the nyt presents as an accepted fact Careful there. If people start questioning the NYT's reporting, they may start believing things like voting machines are unreliable and various other ideas pushed by Republicans.
neilv 2y ago
> Although Dr. Sweatman has long researched the symbols at the ancient site in Turkey, this recent breakthrough came in the form of a tip when someone emailed him that the V-shaped symbols on the pillar could be interpreted as markings of the lunar cycle. They didn't want to be coauthor?
- burkaman 2y ago
  I guess not, but they are mentioned in the acknowledgements and references of the paper. > In Section 8.2, text written in italic font expresses ideas originally communicated by Dr John Gordon (Gordon 2021). Also on the author's blog: https://martinsweatman.blogspot.com/2024/06/lunisolar-calendar-paper-accepted-for.html https://martinsweatman.blogspot.com/2024/06/lunisolar-calend... Not sure who John Gordon is, and that's got to be an incredibly common name even among doctors.
throwaway290 2y ago
TLDR YDIH, if you watched Ancient Apocalypse this is what Gobekli Tepe episode was about. I thought it's debunked.
- torlok 2y ago
  It's a widely criticised hypothesis, because it doesn't fit the geological record. It's mostly propped up by interpretations like these.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- findthewords 2y ago
  Data is incomplete. It is difficult to definitively "debunk" or "prove" as long as crucial information is missing. Humans use imagination to fill in the gaps, which is wonderful.
  - cryptonector 2y ago
    > Humans use imagination to fill in the gaps, which is wonderful. And scientists (humans) "use imagination to fill in the gaps" in ways that can be put to the test, "which is wonderful".
- cryptonector 2y ago
  The evidence for the YDIH is quite strong. But as usual science only makes progress one obituary at a time. Science is not an exercise in accepting a scientist's say-so, dammit. It's an exercise in producing and testing hypothesis. For sciences that study the past it's harder to test because you can't build a test, but you can still check that a hypothesis is consistent with all the data available so far and any future new finds about the past. In particular I find very compelling the theory that the YDIH hit the laurentide ice sheet over Michigan, sending huge ice boulders out that created the Carolina bays and essentially did great damage, but with water ice, thus leaving very little direct physical evidence -- no craters (apart from the Carolina bays), no rocks out of place, no layer of material from the impactor (because it was a comet rather than an asteroid). Before sonar evidence showed that the continents must move, geologists would say that the tectonics theory was debunked (using whatever the appropriate term was then). Well here we are now saying the exact opposite. The only thing we can say with certainty right now is that we don't have consensus as to the cause of the Younger Dryas at this time. To say that the YDIH is debunked is not true and not helpful.
onlypassingthru 2y ago
"The comet strike ushered in a 1,200-year ice age and led to the extinction of many large animals, Dr. Sweatman said. For humans, the comet probably also led to differences in lifestyle and agriculture that helped usher in the rise of civilization as we know it." I thought the Americas' megafauna died after the ice age, not because of it?
- jumploops 2y ago
  Could both statements not be true? The ice age may have encouraged humans to hunt more mammals than previously required.
- kragen 2y ago
  unfortunately the terminology here is very unclear, but i think you're right; the megafauna dying in america was part of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Pleistocene_extinctions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Pleistocene_extinctions which happened before the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas, which is the '1200-year ice age' whose name the nyt didn't think was important enough to mention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesi... discusses the comet impact hypothesis, which it describes as 'controversial and not widely accepted by relevant experts' also note from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas that the younger dryas didn't happen in south america, which is where the largest extinction of american megafauna happened; instead south america had the milder and earlier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Cold_Reversal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Cold_Reversal however, it seems obvious that a widespread glaciation would have caused some extinctions, and there was a long tail of megafauna extinctions that extended long after the younger dryas. glyptodonts like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doedicurus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doedicurus apparently didn't become extinct until only 8000 years ago, and the wrangel island mammoths didn't become extinct until only 4000 years ago
- aport 2y ago
  You're correct, the comet theory has been debunked for years at this point.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
reedf1 2y ago
Careful analysis must be taken to avoid falling victim to the look-elsewhere effect. It is easy to find any numerical relationship you want with motivated reasoning.
8bitsrule 2y ago
For those interested in exploring this topic in much more scientific detail than the NYTimes dares to try, his observations, interpretations and counter-arguments - going back many years - are available on his YTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCx11KXwumf5w8J-GdBGKNVA/videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCx11KXwumf5w8J-GdBGKNVA/vid...
- T-A 2y ago
  From 2017: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/04/21/ancient-stone-carvings-confirm-comet-struck-earth-10950bc-wiping/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/04/21/ancient-stone... https://www.maajournal.com/index.php/maa/article/view/686 https://www.maajournal.com/index.php/maa/article/view/686
nyc111 2y ago
How do they interpret the three handbag like carvings on top also seen in other prehistoric figures https://www.pinterest.com/pin/642466703103282106/ https://www.pinterest.com/pin/642466703103282106/
- lazide 2y ago
  Why couldn’t they be bags designed to be held in the hand? Sandals also look identical from how they looked thousands of years ago. It’s not like human anatomy is different now than it was.
cynicalpeace 2y ago
Amazing how the NY Times can report this stuff as racist and conspiracist only to nonchalantly affirm it months later: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/05/magazine/younger-dryas-impact-hypothesis-comet.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/05/magazine/younger-dryas-im...
- YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
  I cannot see where the NYT article you link is calling the Young Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDiH) racist. The article reports a claim of racism that was made by the Society for American Archeology but this claim was about the idea of an advanced ice-age civilisation, not the YDIH. From your link: The society also argued that Hancock’s idea of an advanced ice-age civilization echoed and promoted “dangerous racist thinking.” (Hancock posted a detailed denial of these claims on his website.) I can't find where the NYT article is calling the YDIH "conspiracist". The article reports the opinions of others who seem to think there is something conspiratorial to it, but the article itself does not directly claim that it is conspiratorial.
throwawaycar 2y ago
[dead]
rfecdsxhkj 2y ago
Sweatman is actually not an archaeologist, and this whole concept he's been pushing for around a decade is actually dead wrong. It's incredible that this actually got published in a legitimate journal with an archaeological focus. I recommend reading this breakdown of why he's wrong from 2019: https://skepticink.com/lateraltruth/2019/01/25/martin-sweatmans-decoding-of-prehistory-incoherent-catastrophe/ https://skepticink.com/lateraltruth/2019/01/25/martin-sweatm... And a great spoof of his work showcasing the numerous logical fallacies in his reasoning: https://skepticink.com/lateraltruth/2018/12/07/decoding-looney-tunes-astronomy-bunny-say/ https://skepticink.com/lateraltruth/2018/12/07/decoding-loon...

88 points by diodorus 2y ago

https://archive.ph/wlrau https://archive.ph/wlrau

Can't wait to hear what archaeologists have to day about this interpretation. This is a fun topic to speculate about. Meanwhile, in case anybody's interested, the Younger Dryas hypothesis is controversial, not widely accepted by the experts, and dr Sweatman appears to be a Chemical Engineer, not an Archeologist. Not that it discredits his findings, of course.

debacle 2y ago
I haven't researched, but I watch the guys on Rogan who talk about Younger Dryas. What are the arguments for/against?
- taejavu 2y ago
  Sounds like you might benefit from doing some research
  - mhuffman 2y ago
    What better places do you recommend for research links? HN is known for being full of experts that might give high quality pointers to pro/con arguments.
    - mathgorges 2y ago
      My general strategy is to find a community where $domainExperts hang out and figure out how they talk about $interestingThing, then refine my search from there using progressively more professional lingo. Here's an example of what my first query for this topic might be: https://kagi.com/search?q=site%3Areddit.com%2Fr%2Faskhistorians+Younger+Dryas&r=us&sh=5-0E-UDPF1fgbbYs86QYtA https://kagi.com/search?q=site%3Areddit.com%2Fr%2Faskhistori...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- lm28469 2y ago
  > the guys on Rogan They are entertainers on an entertaining platform, and the quality went way down the drain in the last 5 years. It's like watching someone slowly developing dementia Between this dude: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ27ZtInsmo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ27ZtInsmo and Peterson I would advise you to look for new sources lmao
kragen 2y ago
to disambiguate, it is not at all controversial that the younger dryas was a thousand-year-long ice age in the northern hemisphere at the relevant time; that is universally accepted by the experts. what is 'controversial and not widely accepted by relevant experts' is the comet impact hypothesis which the nyt presents as an accepted fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesi...
- tivert 2y ago
  > what is 'controversial and not widely accepted by relevant experts' is the comet impact hypothesis which the nyt presents as an accepted fact Careful there. If people start questioning the NYT's reporting, they may start believing things like voting machines are unreliable and various other ideas pushed by Republicans.

neilv 2y ago

> Although Dr. Sweatman has long researched the symbols at the ancient site in Turkey, this recent breakthrough came in the form of a tip when someone emailed him that the V-shaped symbols on the pillar could be interpreted as markings of the lunar cycle. They didn't want to be coauthor?

burkaman 2y ago
I guess not, but they are mentioned in the acknowledgements and references of the paper. > In Section 8.2, text written in italic font expresses ideas originally communicated by Dr John Gordon (Gordon 2021). Also on the author's blog: https://martinsweatman.blogspot.com/2024/06/lunisolar-calendar-paper-accepted-for.html https://martinsweatman.blogspot.com/2024/06/lunisolar-calend... Not sure who John Gordon is, and that's got to be an incredibly common name even among doctors.

throwaway290 2y ago

TLDR YDIH, if you watched Ancient Apocalypse this is what Gobekli Tepe episode was about. I thought it's debunked.

torlok 2y ago
It's a widely criticised hypothesis, because it doesn't fit the geological record. It's mostly propped up by interpretations like these.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
findthewords 2y ago
Data is incomplete. It is difficult to definitively "debunk" or "prove" as long as crucial information is missing. Humans use imagination to fill in the gaps, which is wonderful.
- cryptonector 2y ago
  > Humans use imagination to fill in the gaps, which is wonderful. And scientists (humans) "use imagination to fill in the gaps" in ways that can be put to the test, "which is wonderful".
cryptonector 2y ago
The evidence for the YDIH is quite strong. But as usual science only makes progress one obituary at a time. Science is not an exercise in accepting a scientist's say-so, dammit. It's an exercise in producing and testing hypothesis. For sciences that study the past it's harder to test because you can't build a test, but you can still check that a hypothesis is consistent with all the data available so far and any future new finds about the past. In particular I find very compelling the theory that the YDIH hit the laurentide ice sheet over Michigan, sending huge ice boulders out that created the Carolina bays and essentially did great damage, but with water ice, thus leaving very little direct physical evidence -- no craters (apart from the Carolina bays), no rocks out of place, no layer of material from the impactor (because it was a comet rather than an asteroid). Before sonar evidence showed that the continents must move, geologists would say that the tectonics theory was debunked (using whatever the appropriate term was then). Well here we are now saying the exact opposite. The only thing we can say with certainty right now is that we don't have consensus as to the cause of the Younger Dryas at this time. To say that the YDIH is debunked is not true and not helpful.

onlypassingthru 2y ago

"The comet strike ushered in a 1,200-year ice age and led to the extinction of many large animals, Dr. Sweatman said. For humans, the comet probably also led to differences in lifestyle and agriculture that helped usher in the rise of civilization as we know it." I thought the Americas' megafauna died after the ice age, not because of it?

jumploops 2y ago
Could both statements not be true? The ice age may have encouraged humans to hunt more mammals than previously required.
kragen 2y ago
unfortunately the terminology here is very unclear, but i think you're right; the megafauna dying in america was part of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Pleistocene_extinctions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Pleistocene_extinctions which happened before the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas, which is the '1200-year ice age' whose name the nyt didn't think was important enough to mention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesi... discusses the comet impact hypothesis, which it describes as 'controversial and not widely accepted by relevant experts' also note from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas that the younger dryas didn't happen in south america, which is where the largest extinction of american megafauna happened; instead south america had the milder and earlier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Cold_Reversal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Cold_Reversal however, it seems obvious that a widespread glaciation would have caused some extinctions, and there was a long tail of megafauna extinctions that extended long after the younger dryas. glyptodonts like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doedicurus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doedicurus apparently didn't become extinct until only 8000 years ago, and the wrangel island mammoths didn't become extinct until only 4000 years ago
aport 2y ago
You're correct, the comet theory has been debunked for years at this point.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

reedf1 2y ago

Careful analysis must be taken to avoid falling victim to the look-elsewhere effect. It is easy to find any numerical relationship you want with motivated reasoning.

8bitsrule 2y ago

For those interested in exploring this topic in much more scientific detail than the NYTimes dares to try, his observations, interpretations and counter-arguments - going back many years - are available on his YTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCx11KXwumf5w8J-GdBGKNVA/videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCx11KXwumf5w8J-GdBGKNVA/vid...

T-A 2y ago
From 2017: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/04/21/ancient-stone-carvings-confirm-comet-struck-earth-10950bc-wiping/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/04/21/ancient-stone... https://www.maajournal.com/index.php/maa/article/view/686 https://www.maajournal.com/index.php/maa/article/view/686

nyc111 2y ago

How do they interpret the three handbag like carvings on top also seen in other prehistoric figures https://www.pinterest.com/pin/642466703103282106/ https://www.pinterest.com/pin/642466703103282106/

lazide 2y ago
Why couldn’t they be bags designed to be held in the hand? Sandals also look identical from how they looked thousands of years ago. It’s not like human anatomy is different now than it was.

cynicalpeace 2y ago

Amazing how the NY Times can report this stuff as racist and conspiracist only to nonchalantly affirm it months later: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/05/magazine/younger-dryas-impact-hypothesis-comet.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/05/magazine/younger-dryas-im...

YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
I cannot see where the NYT article you link is calling the Young Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDiH) racist. The article reports a claim of racism that was made by the Society for American Archeology but this claim was about the idea of an advanced ice-age civilisation, not the YDIH. From your link: The society also argued that Hancock’s idea of an advanced ice-age civilization echoed and promoted “dangerous racist thinking.” (Hancock posted a detailed denial of these claims on his website.) I can't find where the NYT article is calling the YDIH "conspiracist". The article reports the opinions of others who seem to think there is something conspiratorial to it, but the article itself does not directly claim that it is conspiratorial.

throwawaycar 2y ago

[dead]

rfecdsxhkj 2y ago

Sweatman is actually not an archaeologist, and this whole concept he's been pushing for around a decade is actually dead wrong. It's incredible that this actually got published in a legitimate journal with an archaeological focus. I recommend reading this breakdown of why he's wrong from 2019: https://skepticink.com/lateraltruth/2019/01/25/martin-sweatmans-decoding-of-prehistory-incoherent-catastrophe/ https://skepticink.com/lateraltruth/2019/01/25/martin-sweatm... And a great spoof of his work showcasing the numerous logical fallacies in his reasoning: https://skepticink.com/lateraltruth/2018/12/07/decoding-looney-tunes-astronomy-bunny-say/ https://skepticink.com/lateraltruth/2018/12/07/decoding-loon...