David Warner Mathisen is a one trick pony, a self-described “star myth investigator” who reads basically every story in world mythology and religion as a description of astronomical movements. He was inspired by Hamlet’s Mill, the complex and dense but ultimately self-referential fantasy concocted by Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend to argue for the existence of a lost civilization based on the flawed assumption that only an advanced civilization could have gazed up at the sky and told stories about the stars they saw there. Mathisen’s schtick, which he has been promoting since he started selling books on the subject back in 2015, is predictable, but his attempt to tie his hobbyhorse to the spectacular Bronze age gemstone that made headlines last year is bizarre even by his standards. Mathisen’s new claims, published this weekend on Graham Hancock’s website, revolve around the Pylos Combat Agate, a Bronze Age artifact uncovered in a Mycenaean tomb in 2015. Careful analysis uncovered a spectacular miniature carving of exceptionally rich detail, similar in style to but unparalleled in execution among the known artifacts of Mycenaean and Minoan cultures. Its features are so well-carved and so small that some believe they imply the use of magnifying lenses at a time when their use was unknown or rare. The gemstone depicts three figures, a warrior with a raised sword, a helmeted soldier holding a shield and about to receive the blow, and a prostrate figure, presumably dead. The agate is believed to have originated in Crete and was either manufactured for or acquired by the warrior in whose tomb it was found. There are two main scholarly interpretations of the scene. One, the more literal, argues that it is a scene drawn from life and depicts the warrior in the tomb. The second, more symbolic, agues that it is a mythological scene of importance to the Minoans and Mycenaeans but unknown to us today, perhaps carved as a miniature of a more elaborate, now lost, wall painting. Mathisen rejects both views: Unnoticed until now, however, is that the scene details a pattern in the heavens. For the figures contain details specific to the constellations Hercules, Ophiucus, Corona Borealis, Scorpio and Sagittarius—using constellational references and artistic conventions that can be found in other ancient works of art from other cultures around the globe, and which also continue to appear in sacred art spanning thousands of years. It’s almost not worth discussing the silliness of the claim, but I get annoyed by the people who try to read Classical constellations back in time before such things existed.
The first and most important issue to note is that the figures on the gems bear no resemblance to the constellations as classically depicted. They are not in the same orientation or position, and their limbs do not approximate the imaginary lines connecting the stars, even allowing for the fact that the stars of Hercules and Ophiucus have been connected to create the characters in several different ways over the centuries. I will repeat that: You cannot map the stars onto the gemstone. The characters are not literal depictions of the constellations. The second problem is that the constellations did not exist when Mathisen claims they did. The agate dates back to around 1450 BCE, but there is no evidence for the existence of the constellation Ophiucus before the fourth century BCE, when Eudoxus of Cnidus wrote of it. His work is lost, which means that we know of it only from Aratus’ slightly later Astronomicon, of the later fourth century, the first record of Ophiucus. Because the constellation does not exist in Babylonian astronomy (at least, it has never been conclusively identified with a Babylonian constellation), which the Greeks took over around 500 BCE, the likelihood is that it dates from the 400s BCE, a thousand years too late. At any rate, we can’t trace the constellations back before Babylon with any security, so there is little reason to suspect that the Greeks of Mycenaean times identified the constellations of their day the same way that the Greeks didn’t get around to developing until after 500 BCE. The agate scene is missing, after all, the usual form of the most important constellation from that part of the sky: Scorpius, which Ophiuchus stands upon. Mathisen says that Scorpius was originally a “wounded warrior” in mythology, even though it is one of the few constellations we can trace back in time, near always as a scorpion. It was a scorpion for the Babylonians, and it remained one when the Greeks took it over. It seems the decided on his claim by working backward rather than finding evidence independent of his own hypothesis. Mathisen disagrees with most authorities, who see the serpent Ophiuchus holds (Serpens) as the oldest element of the constellation; he proposes that it was a spear for the Mycenaeans so that it would better agree with the gemstone. He ludicrously suggests that the shield-bearing warrior’s fringed tunic is akin to Athena’s serpent-fringed aegis, to symbolize Ophiuchus’ serpent-bearing, and it is clear that Mathisen knows nothing of Greek mythology or else he would recognize that the aegis was first described in Homer as bearing golden tassels, like the Golden Fleece, not serpents (Iliad 2.445-449). A Mycenaean prototype seems to exist in a sculpture of two goddesses wrapped in just such a tasseled shawl. If Homer did not see it as a serpent-cloth, the Mycenaeans almost certainly did not. The majority of his argument is based on identifying modern diagrams of the constellations with elements of the gem, but he doesn’t realize that those modern diagrams are just that: modern. They are not necessarily (or even likely) how the Greeks envisioned the shapes of the constellations. The argument descends into little more than “looks like therefore is” and reveals that the author, like so many of his peers, has developed a monomaniacal obsession with an odd idea and sees evidence of it everywhere. He writes at length, for example, about what he sees as constellation shapes in medieval and Renaissance art, which he says encodes the same information as the agate. “This presents grave problems for the conventional historical paradigm. It thus takes its place among a now-overwhelming pile of other evidence from both archaeology and mythology, all of which points towards some now-forgotten culture or civilisation of great sophistication in humanity’s ancient past, predating all of those known to academia or admitted by conventional scholars.” He seems not to recognize that even if medieval and Renaissance artists were depicting constellation shapes in their human figures—and they weren’t—it implies nothing about a lost civilization since those star shapes were well-known to everyone alive at that time. There is no secret knowledge needed to copy constellation shapes that were in every reference book on the subject.
37 Comments
Only Me
2/13/2018 10:11:35 am
I'll just say that I'm awestruck by the carving. It's an amazingly beautiful piece.
Reply
BigNick
2/13/2018 10:36:51 am
That is truly amazing, especially with the stone being less than 1 1/2 wide.
Reply
Joe Scales
2/13/2018 10:44:31 am
Looks like a guy trying to slay a Terminator...
Reply
Just some guy, you know?
2/14/2018 10:07:56 pm
Clearly this lost civilization was far more advanced than we thought!
Reply
Clete
2/13/2018 11:20:23 am
The stone really is beautiful. Whoever carved it was truly a master. I wonder, based on its size, if it was a ring.
Reply
David Bradbury
2/14/2018 03:43:25 am
If anything, it's more pendant-sized. There certainly was a tradition of finely detailed rings in that era though:
Reply
BigNick
2/13/2018 11:37:24 am
Has anyone claimed that the image shows a human killing an alien, and it could have only been carved by a laser. If not, I need to find a publisher.
Reply
Shane Sullivan
2/13/2018 12:29:23 pm
Just by looking at the picture, I can tell you with 100 % confidence that this is genuine Lake Superior agate.
Reply
Kal
2/13/2018 03:17:41 pm
That thing is just over one inch across. It first appeared in 2015 in some stone and was cut from it, in 2015 to 2017. It is not ancient. They might claim it is, but it is not. Whoever 'preserved' the bead carved the images. It looks too modern to be something from Myciae in the Bronze age. The tomb might be that old, but the bead is not. That is my guess anyway. It would explain a lot.
Reply
Machala
2/13/2018 06:17:07 pm
The carving is exquisite and I could understand how someone might think it was too modern to be a Mycenaean piece, but the Mycenaeans and the Minoans were known for intricate miniature gemstone carvings.
Reply
An Anonymous Nerd
2/13/2018 06:39:39 pm
No Google result suggests fraud.
Reply
Campblor
2/13/2018 05:13:20 pm
obviously the knights templar commissioned the piece
Reply
Americanegro
2/13/2018 05:39:01 pm
Sounds like that Arizona Hebrew sword. Some word beginning with "c" that can easily be faked? Was there more than one person there when it was found? Is there a chain of custody? I agree that it's beautiful but if it's too good to be true...
Reply
Pacal
2/13/2018 08:52:41 pm
I'll just add my vote to the Wow!!! list. The gemstone is stunning!!!
Reply
An Anonymous Nerd
2/13/2018 10:51:05 pm
I took a look at the original article: Jason is being too kind to it.
Reply
2/14/2018 02:07:31 am
It's not often something good can be said to have come from the nonsense mongers but if it weren't for this chap's nonsense, you wouldn't have written this and I wouldn't have seen this carving. A beautiful work of art, from composition to execution.
Reply
Riley V
2/14/2018 05:59:37 am
Exactly. This is why I come here. I learn so much.
Reply
Americanegro
2/14/2018 01:51:06 pm
You make a good point. I don't care if it was carved yesterday as part of a hoax, it's beautiful to look at and I admire the craft. UNLESS.... there's some way to mold agate or it was done in a C&C machine..
V
2/15/2018 01:34:12 pm
I'm allergic to shrimp and I don't have or want a sweetie. Can I just have the heart-shaped bowl of fried rice? Maybe make it pork fried instead?
RiverM
2/17/2018 03:56:25 am
CNC - Computer Numerical Control
2372
2/14/2018 06:40:21 am
Jason knows nothing about how people of that epoch either read or translated the heavens into their arts and crafts. So why he should get annoyed when others try is a mystery.
Reply
Only Me
2/14/2018 07:37:04 am
"a monomaniacal obsession with an odd idea and sees evidence of it everywhere."
Reply
2/14/2018 08:00:24 am
I'm at a loss as to what you are saying here. If the gemstone does not actually depict constellations as they appear in the sky, then it is not an astronomical image. If you are saying that it supposedly shows a mythological scene told of stars, then you are talking about astrology and run into an insoluble problem: You have no way of showing that the myth in question was derived from the stars rather than applied to them at a later date. In the absence of written records, you are merely speculating and expecting me to accept your speculation as fact. It might be true or it might not, but without evidence there is no way to judge.
Reply
Americanegro
2/14/2018 01:55:57 pm
@2372: Your post makes no sense. Where are you institutionalized?
2372
2/14/2018 02:07:11 pm
Your article identifies two scholarly interpretations, neither of which consider, nor allude, to astronomical connections. Mathisen adds a third consideration, which is in two parts a) "Unnoticed until now, however, is that the scene details a pattern in the heavens"., and b) a statement of which star patterns he believes are the sources of the detail.
Only Me
2/14/2018 02:59:25 pm
"With respect, you have no idea what patterns the people of that time saw in the skies, and therefore you have no idea whether any of them could have, either closely or even remotely, reflected the "Classical" constellations that we are aware of, or even the 88 internationally agreed that we use currently to navigate the skies, observationally."
An Anonymous Nerd
2/14/2018 07:06:50 pm
Neither the original article nor the defense of it presented here really make any sense. Jason's argument is that the author starts by pre-supposing classical Greek constellations and assuming this culture saw them too, then super-imposes the image onto them.
Americanegro
2/14/2018 09:52:42 pm
You sound like an ass. Perhaps you could try again to make your point clearly.
Reply
Americanegro
2/14/2018 09:55:39 pm
Based on where my post ended up I want to clarify that it was directed at 2372.
2372
2/15/2018 07:57:52 am
All is very clear, and Jason knows it. He says in answer to me, quote: "I'm at a loss as to what you are saying here. If the gemstone does not actually depict constellations as they appear in the sky, then it is not an astronomical image..."
Only Me
2/15/2018 10:10:38 am
"With respect, you have no idea what patterns the people of that time saw in the skies, and therefore you have no idea whether any of them could have, either closely or even remotely, reflected the 'Classical' constellations that we are aware of, or even the 88 internationally agreed that we use currently to navigate the skies, observationally."
Bob Jase
2/14/2018 11:27:37 am
I don't see why there are any arguements - the lines in the sky around the stars sre clear to any one who looks at them, its not as if people made the constellations up.
Reply
2372
2/15/2018 01:31:26 pm
One last time:
Reply
Joe Scales
2/15/2018 01:42:29 pm
"I can't see what's not clear about that, except of course that asking the correct scientific questions doesn't fit into the remit of this website. "
Reply
Only Me
2/15/2018 02:46:46 pm
"With respect, you have no idea what patterns the people of that time saw in the skies, and therefore you have no idea whether any of them could have, either closely or even remotely, reflected the 'Classical' constellations that we are aware of, or even the 88 internationally agreed that we use currently to navigate the skies, observationally."
Reply
Americanegro
2/15/2018 03:29:59 pm
So which constellation(s) does the carving represent and where are you institutionalized?
Reply
An Anonymous Nerd
2/15/2018 08:18:54 pm
There simply is no reason to believe anything 2372 is saying or anything in the article 2372 is defending. Jason has pointed out how the constellations that supposedly influenced the carving seemingly weren't recognized by the culture that produced the carving. I haven't seen anything that says anyone that actually studies this culture ever said the image has anything to do with the stars.
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab. Newsletters
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Categories
All
Terms & ConditionsPlease read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.
Archives
March 2025
|