Imagine how sad it was for the people who had poor eyesight before glasses. Stars would be a blurry mess in the sky.

I think there is a good chance that either late stone age people knew about precession or it was discovered long before the official greek discovery of it

I can certainly understand how... our fore-bearers saw the sky, the movements of the sun, moon, and stars and how animals and plants behaved ... breeding, growing, emerging, and hibernation ... how the timing of celestial events matched the seasonal behavior and used that information. Better yet, someone(s) was back there even thought of making star maps to help them remember over time. Clever apes with tools and then to the moon.

More like twelve millennia. As Göbekli Tepe shows

https://astronomy.com/news/2020/09/gobekli-tepe-the-worlds-first-astronomical-observatory

As a kid I had a glow in the dark picture of Earth on the bunk above me. I used to stare at the clouds on it each night as I went to sleep. I knew each and every twist in turn of the cloud pattern and I'm fairly sure I would notice a small change.

In the times before Reddit, tv, or even books I wouldn't imagine a great deal of time was spent staring at the night sky and that many people could have drawn star charts from memory.

It comes to me as no surprise that all throughout history humanity has had a very good concept of the motion of things in space

I boo this writer. That line "no exaggeration" is from a 2008 book on the history of astronomy across civilizations, and the first line of the preface is "It is no exaggeration to say..."

That suggests to me the writer of this article did not read the book at all. It is also odd that he would use this quote when every example in the article is far less than 5,000 years. If you look at his other articles, this is his thing. He cherrypicks quotes from books and inserts them as if it is wise and insightful. The topic is fine but idk this writer really bugs me.

[removed]

I don’t see how people would not notice about season changing and changes of the moon in the sky. And later, changes in time of sunrise, sunset, moon rise and moon set. I am betting on a few million years.

Don’t bother to look for documents of these “discoveries”.

Makes complete sense and imagine that ancient night sky without any pollution.

Without glasses or contacts I can't even tell there are stars in the sky :(

I would hazard a guess that astronomy/astrology was a mother of scientific though.

Definitely, however take some solace in that it seems as each year goes by, a higher percentage of people need glasses. So you can draw that backwards and infer that barely anyone needed glasses in the before times. Before the dark times. Before we started looking down instead of out.

I mean, id argue against it being an EXACT science 5k years; but ok.

You know, in the before times you know what the other predator species called humans with bad eyesight, LUNCH!

This is a difference between popular science & academic writing that it took me until my 3rd year in astrophysics to really bottom out.

Today I find reading popular science magazines far less enjoyable & wish they were better written, but then I also recognise I'm no longer the target audience for the magazines that got me interested in astronomy in the first place.

That makes sense. Looking at the sky and relating what they observed to growing seasons probably occupied a lot of their time.

That's a good point. I can want to be the target audience, but alas I am probably not, for similar reasons.

[removed]

That's just a theoryfrom Hancock and his ilk , even your own article says as much.
However, those claims of Gobekli Tepe's connection to the night sky have been largely rejected by the main team actual excavating the temple.

[removed]

I was on a beach in Hawaii one night and the sky was completely clear in every direction. It was the only time I ever really felt the truth of living on a rock in space. It felt obvious.

I imagine that feeling might have been more common a long time ago

His ilk. Says much about your dogmatic views.

[removed]

Agreed, natural selection would have them eliminated until “recently.”

I assure you, without glasses stars do not appear

3200 BC The Dogon tribe in Mali recorded Sirus B existence ...The crazy thing about this is it wasn't til 1862 we seen it through a telescope as it is not visible with the naked eye.

If you look at a lot of old paintings it is apparent many of them had astigmatisms as every star is depicted with burst of light jetting out around it.

I had a similar experience in Peru at Machu Picchu, delayed train back and it was amazing. People were asking “what is that?” You can get that view out west in the high deserts Utah, Nevada etc.

Have you heard the theory going around that Graham Hancock is actually much much older than he claims to be? Some are saying he’s maybe as much as 13,000 years old and an immortal descendent of the same pre-Ice Age civilization he talks about on his show. Ever since this theory surfaced Hancock has been running scared, and has refused to take a simple blood test which would prove his DNA is ancient. And yet he won’t. You have to wonder, why is that? Do your own research and connect the dots. Could Graham Hancock really be suppressing his own lost pre-historic origins? Ancient Hancock Theorists say: yes!

You're right. Of course, an ancient people who at least had a sophisticated enough understanding of technology, to make carvings in stone, and raise multi thousand pound pieces of rock into the air, did not use stars whatsoever to align said pieces of rock with the stars. The same stars, planets and nebulas that shone above their heads for about half the hours of day.

Hancocks theories regarding what the carvings mean is a completely different point of my original post.

Humanity has been using the stars for at least 12 millennia. Göbekli and the other Tepe sites in the area have barely been explored and excavated. More and more evidence will support humankind, having been technologically sophisticated much longer than main stream academics generally realize.

Just do some basic research and you'll see many sites in the area only just beginning exploration digging

[removed]

You believe what he says?

[deleted]

Absolutely not all of it. For example, nothing of the interpretation of whatever pillar # that gets much attention (I think 42).

There's a few other things here or there that are compelling. But in general much of it is unsubstantiated, subjective, personal opinion he espouses with a very authoritative narrative sounding perspective.

Hancock aside the sophistication of the Tepe sites are very impressive and about 2x older than Egypt or Stonehenge

So what is the explanation? To me they clearly look like constellations and their relative placements are pretty accurate.

It’s just as valid of an interpretation of the relief as any other idea

By the time Ecology has existed as an exact science for five millennia, it’ll be way too fucking late.

Curious if you mean nearsighted people or all people needing glasses. There are tons of farsighted people like myself that need glasses to live in our modern society to get by, but wouldn't be significantly impacted even just a few hundred years ago if we didn't need to read or work with things on a small scale. I can see the stars just fine without my glasses. Additionally as people age they tend to need glasses as well and today people are living longer generally, so that is also creating more need.

Living in a big city, the Milky Way is just a scientific fact. Out in the middle of darkest nowhere, it's something truly amazing.

[removed]

It’s called Darwin. Those people would’ve been dead quickly.

Edit: you can’t see, you can’t hunt for food very well back then. You also can’t see threats. So you’d be dead. Natural selection you stupid fucks.

‘Allegedly’

>The explanation favored by Sagan is that the Dogon were visited by a technological civilization, but not an extraterrestrial one. The nature of the knowledge imparted is consistent with a visit by a science attentive person in the 1930s or 1940s when the discovery of the nature of Sirius B was being widely discussed in popular science books. This information could then have been woven into the Dogon's existing mythology in time to give Griaule and Dieterlen something very interesting to write home about.

>A variation on this theme is that the knowledgeable visitor and the source of the information might have been Griaule himself. Though an anthropologist, Griaule had studied astronomy in Paris. He was aware of the discovery of Sirius B and may have over interpreted the Dogon responses to his questions.

>In 1991 Walter van Beek, a Belgian anthropologist, led a team of anthropologists to study the Dogon tribe. Although he hoped to find evidence for their astounding astronomical knowledge, the team found no trace of the detailed Sirius lore reported by Griaule.

https://chandra.harvard.edu/chronicle/0400/sirius_part2.html

This is my new Graham Hancock headcanon.

[removed]

It just makes too much sense, right?

I mean we see the "documents" all over, in stone.

Okay maybe not all over all over. But it's no kind of mysterious thing that we can only guess at.

[removed]

[removed]

Absolutely, no guess there. It was Brahe and Kepler's astronomical collaboration that led to Kepler's discovery of "the force that moves the worlds" and, thence, Newton's theories of gravitation, motion, continuous mathematical functions, the speed of light, and so on.

So it probably was for everyone who studied the stars carefully. Whenever someone ever said, "I feel like it must be the equinox" and then consulted their astronomical rock markings and learned that, actually, no, irrespective of how they might feel the equinox is not for another 3 weeks.... that was science right there.

Describing the night sky or seasons is not astronomy. Yes, ancient peoples were often far more intelligent than we give them credit for. But it’s unnecessary to say they had all of astronomy figured out back then.

That's true but people are stupid and think that's astrology not astronomy

Even with glasses some peoples vision is terrible. My wife kept complaining she couldn’t see the things I would point out. I took her out to the beach in the middle of nowhere and pointed out Cassiopeia and drew the main stars in the sand and had her fill in the stars around it by descending brightness. That was the day I learned that even with corrected vision, some peoples eyes just aren’t that good.

Being that we do not have "all of astronomy figured out" in the present day, it is therefor safe to say that no one is claiming ancient peoples did either.

[removed]

At the very least you should be impressed that a late scientist still writes.

[removed]

it's a shame that there is underlying racist motives in astronomy for more than 5 millennia

[removed]

[removed]

I mean, if this is true, I think we're all late to science.

> Before the dark times.

In a quite literal sense....it seems nearsightedness happens because children spend more time indoors, in conditions of indoor lighting. Indoor lighting is a whole lot dimmer than outdoor light, and that means the signaling process the eyes use to control their growth doesn't work properly.

Them putting up that massive shade sail was a way to stop people from looking up and trying to make connections. They want us to think these were made by hunter gatherers and the animals carvings are nothing but that

As shown by Gobekli Tepe dating back 12,000 years

Some even argue that you shouldn’t wear sunglasses outside all the time, and also gazing sun rises and sunsets does wonders.

I just finished reading "The Milky Way: an Autobiography of Our Galaxy" by Dr. Moiya McTier, she was the first dual major of astrophysics and folklore from Harvard.

She keeps it pretty high level, but touches some on the connection between primitive humans, astrology, folklore, and it's progression into astronomy. It's a very well written book, has a lot of info on Galaxy formation, star formation and types, age and shape of the universe. It wound up being a lot more detailed than I thought it might be.

That constancy of the heavens is something I think we take for granted. Before Galileo and his work to improve the telescope, the heavens were seen as immutable: unchanging. It's difficult to imagine how odd it must have been to see changes happen before the telescope. Most of those would have been temporary, such as comets and nova changes to brightness. They would have really seemed like messengers.

The vast majority of lifelong vision problems are due to inadequate bright light in the first year after birth. The eyes growth is inhibited by bright focused light. Which is what makes them grow until focused. If the light isn't provided them the eyes grow too large and cause nearsightedness.

It was definitely the science that proved science itself had to have a methodology outside religious thought and that it needed something besides logic to solve discrepancies. Galileo pushed for that ... and won, eventually.

So now the government is hiding the site by building a structure and visitor center? Gotcha. Okay Eddie Bravo

Ilk is the proper word. Hancock doesn't need to be mentioned in order to discuss the Tepes of Turkey.

Well the planets looked like really bright stars that would wander around the sky so I could imagine the curious would really want to know if they could figure them out or predict their motion

[removed]

Yes! Their walk across the zodiac was definitely intriguing to our ancestors. However, the Planets, as well, seemed to have a discernible pattern that could be tracked. So, they were mostly dependable and unchanging in their motion.

The Planets' stubborn refusal to be where they were supposed to be is one of the great catalysts of the scientific revolution. Because they moved in ellipses, Kepler, I think, was the first to produce math that would table them correctly.

I'd bet the farm thats due to nutritional deficiency.

Or we are simply better at diagnosing eye issues and people are more aware of them and have better access to them

Is there a source I can read for this

There was no light pollution. They could see the bright stars unless they're really blind.

here you go

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8721425/

I mean people have probably been making "stick-henge" calendars for tens of thousands of years. Clever people who could predict seasons and astronomical phenomena would have been highly respected.

Wasnt that antikythera mechanisme that they found something similar ?

Yeah…instead of just always looking at a fixed distance (screens)

And yet modern scientists pretend like weve only been doing it for a few years.

Charlatans.

Like clumps of salt in the sky

I remember reading as a kid that Homo Sapiens Sapiens became a thing roughly 50,000 years ago. Now more evidence suggest that we’ve anatomically and behaviorally the same even further back than that. No telling how long ago that there have been curious humans discovering astronomy.

Well popular science is for the laymen like me to grasp science. It’s like comparing YA literature for kids to like Dostoevsky for AP and college students😂. Which now that I said all that you did make that point.

[removed]

[removed]

I’m a lifelong glasses wearer and had no idea. Thanks for sharing.

"Grug, Thrug, sky charcoal make shape like crab! Me write on cave wall."

And the rest is history.

Now days nobody can (in comparison to what a light pollution free sky looks like)

35 to 50 kya, as The Cosmic Hunt shows

One of the few good traits of the species is that from time to time, we look up and wonder.

I can see em pretty well in Yosemite. Love star gazing every time I go!

I disagree. The bad eyesight the average person has now wouldn't of been such a hindrance they couldn't forage

If this were the case, then all modern humans would have what you call "good eyesight". Predation hasn't been an issue for humans for only a few thousand years, which is not generally enough for a trait like bad eyesight to diffuse into society if it were previously under selective pressure.

For instance, modern (and honestly eve ancient) humans have no need for the ability to wiggle their ears, but most people have the muscle and can be taught to use it. Non-human ancestors used this muscle to detect predators more accurately.

Additionally: strong acuity distance vision isn't what helps spot predators. Hearing, motion sensitivity, and color vision are way more effective in this regard. In fact, I'd wager that the invention of the bow actually increased the visual acuity of the human population, since ability to use a bow and thrown spear at long ranges was a heavily favorable trait for tens of thousands of years, and, critically, during the ice age, when natural selection was particularly heavy.

That's not how natural selection works.

Civilization is about ten thousand years old and the species has been around for probably at least a quarter million years. 5000 years isn’t all that long from that point of view.

Except earth being a rock in space is new information in humanity’s history of knowledge

I remember when I was watching Ancient Apocalypse on Netflix graham Hancock believe ancient civilizations were experts in astronomy and created megastructures dedicated to keeping track of astronomical events and specific celestial objects.

I don’t know if his theory of an ancient Neolithic civilization that spanned the entire world was true but I do like to believe that humans in the past were far more knowledgeable on ancient astronomy than we thought

[removed]

I’m reading that now. Have you read The Human Cosmos by Jo Marchant? It actually begins with the story of the Lascaux caves.

That isn't how it works. Natural selection is a filter limiting what is possible. It isn't like if people with bad eyesight are more likely to survive today compared to the past that all of us will have bad eyesight it is more like there is going to be people with bad eyesight not dying as much now.

Besides we have bad eyesight now because we are indoors all the time. But on the plus side lazy eye is becoming a thing of the past.

Some constellations are ancient, such as Scorpius, going back thousands of years. People used to put their stories in the skies. Shamans and night watch came to know the sky, noticed changes like planetary movement, the sun, moon and such, and sought meaning in what they saw. Learning when to plant crops came from observing the skies.

I think you just spend some time to prepare an answer where you contradicted yourself in the same paragraph

I on the other hand took only a few seconds to intimate a possibility humorously

Let's see what survival of the fittest says about that

Really truly makes you wonder what life was really like in that time. All we know is work eat sleep repeat. All we know is time. Gotta go gotta go lifestyle. I couldn’t imagine living in those old times with no tools. No houses. No warmth from a home. Didn’t have to wake up at 3 in the morning to go to some job and be miserable all day. Every single day. I can talk about this stuff for hours. Just really makes you think what life was like then. I bet it was craaaaazy. You literally had to survive every single day

How much is "sone time"?

It can also be light sensitivity.

I have, apparently, insanely good dark vision compared to my wife. If there is slight moonlight, or light pollution on a cloudy night I can make out pretty much everything in our house just with ambient light from outside while she can barely see what's 4 to 5 feet away. When I go to the eye doctor they don't have to dilate my pupils because they get so large in the dark they don't have to.

It's possible your pupils get much larger and take in more light than your wife's. She might see with the same clarity, 20/20, but not get enough light to see dim things. I wouldn't say that makes her eyesight "bad" if that's the case. She might be better equipped to deal with bright scenes instead.

[deleted]

By reference the internet I mean read papers from the teams doing research on the Tepe sites.

It's really not much different than the very thought provoking but ultimately fanciful dismantling of Mercury, first proposed by Bradbury and now ostensibly emboldened by some maths and the think-tank FHI. Im really not here to defend Hancock, but he has presented some compelling ideas that rubs the mainstream academic community sore, as many newer ideas do, especially when it goes against the narrative. People call them idiots or pseudoscience pushers, until they give the idea a fair subjective chance.

Males and females tend to have different rod and cone distribution in their eyes. On average guys have better night vision and peripheral vision. Women tend to have better color differentiation.

[deleted]

Agreed. I didn't originally bring up Hancock, another commenter did. My opinion the ton of that comment was to conflate Hancock with the Tepe sites, and discredit humanity having understood the stars far longer than has been generally accepted. There are many mainstream academics doing real research on Tepe. I having done a decent amount of reading of their work (by no means all of it); it does seem that some of the pillars were purposefully arranged to alight with astrological dates.

That really was my point. Humanity has been using astronomy as an exact science for about 12k years. And obviously it's controversial statement.

Also, lastly. Yes, I would agree with you to leave academic process to the academics most of the time. Recently I am sure you're aware of the extremely large glowing gas arc discovery by amateur astronomers. The cloud is about 3x larger than the moon, from our perspective, in the night sky. Totally missed by the actual academics.

https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/amateur-astronomers-find-glowing-gas-arc-near-andromeda/

[deleted]

Astigmatism is mostly a modern phenomenon

I would agree with you.

And one has to take a look at who they're communicating with in order to have an quicker understanding of where they're coming from. If your feathers get ruffled by people reading through what you post that's on you.

I liked and enjoyed your post, btw.

Kepler was several hundred years later than Shen Kuo of china who described “willow leaf” shaped motion of planets and retrograde motion in the 11th century AD.

https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Shen_Kua/

[deleted]

[deleted]

hamlets mill may interest you.

No worries. Yeah it's thought provoking. Reminded me of some hard sci-fi from Neal Stephenson, Kim Stanley Robinson, Dan Simmons, Vernor Vinge. Etc. in a good way. Those authors generally are harder(ish) sci-fi and kinda try to stay in the rhelm of scientifically, accurate/plausible story lines.

I personally try to assume positive intent. Though reading up on someone helps me understand where they're coming from, when I too don't have voice or face to reference.

[removed]

[removed]

as entertaining as his theories are, never forget that hancock is an anti scientific grifter. no disrespect to you, just trying to warn you that the man's fundamentally wrong in his assumptions and explanations of history. Many ancients were definitely experts in astronomy but that has nothing to do with graham's incorrect and flawed assertions and logic.

It's the world's first science. We had accurate models of the solar system before the plow was invented. The fucking plow.

I get a sense of awe whenever anybody talks about seeing a clear night sky. I had the pleasure to be at a party on private land in the middle of Wales with no light glare about ten years ago during the perseids meteor shower.

I lay outside watching the stars for a long time and the shooting stars... hundreds upon hundreds of them. I've never seen the sky so clear, nor that many shooting stars ever.

I had this feeling of connection to the whole Universe. As vast as it was, it was close, and I felt I could sense life everywhere doing the same as me in that moment too, looking back towards me. It was overwhelmingly beautiful.

I'm a musician, and I've written many songs about that feeling, awe in that one moment, and I probably will continue to for the rest of my life.

I've been chasing it ever since to see the same thing again. I hope I do one day.

For anyone interested in Indigenous Australian astronomy I recommend the work of Duane Hamacher. It’s not without flaws, but does offer a good place to start.

When I was working in the Northern Territory of Australia I recorded some rock paintings and associated stories which involved stars and Dreaming spirits. I was particularly surprised by the specific astronomical understanding of different types of stars - really fascinating stuff.

I don’t think Shen Kuo’s willow leaf explanation (where traversing the “point” is part of the explanatory power and not mathematically explained) of retrograde motion in a geocentric model is in the same realm as Kepler producing the math showing elliptic orbits in a heliocentric model.

page 17 is where I found some some more details

Earth being a rock in space is ancient knowledge.

What space is and the fact that there are lots of other rocks in space is much, much more recent.

I've yet to go somewhere high in altitude and low enough in light pollution, but the college town I was in was somewhat decent. One night a friend got me to go out and stare at the sky until my eyes adjusted. It was pretty faint, but damn was it cool actually seeing the milky way for the first time.

Now I live in a city where I rarely even see stars in the sky :-/

> now wouldn't of been

Did you mean to say "wouldn't have"?
Explanation: You probably meant to say could've/should've/would've which sounds like 'of' but is actually short for 'have'.
Total mistakes found: 745
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes. ^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions.
^^Github
^^Patreon

The fact that people thousands of years ago managed to figure out that precession is even a thing, let alone calculating it so precisely, hurts my brain.

[removed]

Just like chemistry and alchemy, they were the same thing for most of history.

Yes prehistoric people, even the caveman like homo erectus, were astronomers to a point.

Though theidea earth was flat was the dominant view until 2000 or so years ago.

[removed]

Sounds like maybe the Brecon Beacons? Amazing place to view the night sky - I saw the Milky Way for the first time from near Pen y Fan recently and I'm not ashamed to say I cried.

It was on a farm in Meifod. It was the most moving thing. I struggled leaving. I'm from Liverpool, but lived in Manchester at the time working as a DJ and I just knew that wasn't the life for me anymore and I wanted to make Wales my home.

I've lived in Wales for over a year now and I'm just about to embark on a life as a folk musician. It took some time but I'm glad that change is taking place. And that's all because the sky was so inspiring that night. I've never been able to click with a city ever again.

[removed]

Ah nice. I moved from England to Wales too. It's a gem of a country, I'm starting to really get why the Welsh are so proud to be Welsh. They've got something to be proud of for sure.

It's gorgeous. I value being able to go and explore and climb hills and walk through forests so much.

This is slightly unrelated, but I'm sure it'll be a great dark spot too. But I've got a growing fascination with Glen Affric in Scotland for the ancient native pine and aspen forests that are there.

But it's next on my list for a get away and hopefully some nice dark skies :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVxe2fR2tGg

I haven't, but I'll put it on my list for the library. Thanks.

I have always found it ironic that the more advanced we get the less we see of the sky

The "wow muh post history?!" Is such a weird thing to bring to me. It takes 2 clicks to get to your post history, and it's just as easy to read as your comment here.

Its very much an intended feature of this website.

Such a shame the conquistadors destroyed so much

What you’ve mentioned is part of it, but we’ve done comparisons in bright sunlight through a magnified optic with similar results. She just does t resolve the detail that I do. Like the comment under yours though, she can differentiate more colours than I can.

I wasn’t trying to admit he was right or anything. I just thought his ideas were entertaining for tv purposes

When I was in the Navy 20 years ago and I was sailing in the central Pacific under Darken Ship conditions and not another shop for miles over the horizon, I saw more stars in the sky than I knew possible. It was like looking out from the ISS.

[removed]

Not like it produced much of value until a couple hundred years ago.

It would have been awesome if the Dogon had a hard drive to hand over to Walter.

[removed]

But those that didn’t have an increase visual acuity would have been worse off than those that did right? Potentially leading to their genetic lines ending.

Asking to learn.

I’m not so sure about that, I had -4 vision and couldn’t see anything in focus farther than a foot away. Are you saying that I wouldn’t have more difficulty gathering and foraging than someone with better vision?

I would ask you to rewrite your 2nd sentence and try to have it make sense. Hard example to follow, doesn’t give me any insight into how NS works.

I'm sure you would I just wouldn't think to the degree that you get kicked out of a village of die of starvation. If that is true though, there were a lot of roles for people to have in a village that didn't require good vision. Fishing, helping with child rearing or gathering wood for example

Fair point, I guess I’m not familiar with family/tribal roles enough to know one way or another. To me, poor eyesight is a negative trait, and I would expect back then, it would be harder to find a mate with such a weakness. Therefor, limiting the genetic pool of that individual.

Probably since we spread around africa and asia, evidence suggests homo erectus used rafts or simple boats.

It would certainly have been more convincing.

Maybe, hard to say. Speculating about evolution which didn't happen is really hard because evolution is an emergent process that doesn't happen for single traits in a vacuum.

What we can do is take a look at animals with high visual acuity who are otherwise unrelated. Birds, Cats, and (weirdly) Tarsiers are probably the acuity standouts in nature, and they are all predators. Prey with the best vision don't tend to have remarkable acuity, instead, they have improved field of view (goats, rabbits, etc). So it seems like "bad vision= you're lunch" doesn't really apply that well in examples we can see.

[removed]

[removed]

It's my favorite part about going back and visiting home in Nevada. My mom's house is high on a hill over Reno (NV hill, in the US Mid-Atlantic it would be a mountain) so it's outside of the city light pollution. I can go in the yard and look up and actually map out a bunch of constellations.

When I lived in DC for a few years, I was lucky to pick out 10 stars at night.

Now in an east cost suburb, I can see stars, but still nowhere near the level of the Nevadan night sky.

Lives in both places and Nevada is a great place to see the sky.

What???? This is such a lie. Every history book I had growing up talked about the ancient Aztec's amazing understanding of astronomy and how it took western civilization generations to catch up to them. Don't make shit up and act like it is some gotcha go read a book.

Well yeah, when everything on the ground is trying to kill you, studying the sky seems like the safest thing to study!

Using the stars for navigation maybe have been the genesis of our expansion.

Probably, possibly so for other animals too

Interesting, thanks for the reply!