Posted on Friday 10 March 2006 to unknown

The latest astronomer to work on the disc is Ralph Hansen from Hamburg who said: ?I wanted to explain the thickness of the crescent on the sky disc of Nebra because it is not a new moon phase.? ... [but] If Hansen is right, the disc is irrelevant to his theory. Hansen started by looking for a specific moon phase. There's two assumptions in this. One is that the phase is accurately depicted on the disc. The other is that the phase can also be accurately identified when observing the moon. It's not the phase that I'd look for. Over the course of two years the Moon would pass by the Pleiades (in various phases) twenty-five times. The easiest phase to observe would be first sighting of the New Moon passing by the Pleiades, and here's my first problem: this method would work just as well. It would be out of step with Hansen's method, but no more inaccurate. It's a bit like the difference between an hourly bus service which leaves once an hour on the hour and one that leaves once an hour at five minutes past the hour.In the comments to his post he was asked what he thought the disc might have actually been used for.
Another issue is that the Moon doesn't just pass the Pleiades. It travels through the whole zodiac over twenty-nine days. What happens if, like me, you don't think the seven rivet cluster is the Pleiades? Let's say it's Praesepe in Cancer. Once again because we're talking about fixed cycles it makes no difference to the accuracy. The intercalary months would fall in different years, so this system would be out of step with Hansen's model, but no less accurate.
What you have then is a use for the disc which works just as well if the Moon phase is wrong and whatever the cluster is. Hansen's method doesn't tell us much about the disc, but says a lot about how intelligent modern astronomers are. Is knowing when to insert an extra month really an astronomical problem? I don't think so. It's a social problem, and that means that astronomical methods are inappropriate.
That's difficult to answer. There might not ever be enough data to make more than a rough guess. If it dates from the Bronze Age, then I think it is most likely to be a symbol of power and prestige. It's common for magicians / shamans to wear symbols showing where their power comes from like totem animals or stars. I think this would have been a very intricate thing to make, so only a successful shaman could have worn it. This doesn't mean there isn't a complex story to explain why certain features are on the disc, but I can't see how we can find such a story from the disc alone.One of the experts called by the defence in the appeal hearing, Professor Peter Schauer from Regensburg University, suggested that the disc was either a fake or possibly a shamanistic ritual object from Siberia at most only a few centuries old.
But it does look similar to a part of a Siberian shamanic drum. Additionally it looks nothing like the other dramatic finds from the region which are the Golden Hats.
The reason the German team examining the disc think it's thousands of years old rather than hundreds of years old is down to an analysis of the corrosion of the surface. At the moment the team seem to be finding astronomical features in the disc that they want to see. I don't know enough about corrosion to say whether the chemists are doing the same. I would like it to be genuine, but that's not enough.
If the disc has been properly excavated then it would be easier to say things about it. Unfortunately the German team are left with the testimony of the looters. I don't envy their task in trying to prove the age of the disc.