Nomes and Star Constellations of Ancient Egypt : The Neolithic Northern Arabia Camel Site : Are They Related by Ancient Astronomy?

The Celestial River: Identifying the Ancient Egyptian Constellations, Sino-Platonic Papers, 253 (December 2014), Victor H. Mair, Editor, Dept. of East Asian Languages & Civilizations, Univ. of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104-6305 USA, vmair@sas.upenn.edu, www.sino-platonic.org

authored by Alessandro Berio

-- as posted by Magdi Saleh at Academia.edu --

presents astronomical analysis that bears significantly upon our recent postings about the Northern Arabia "Camel Site", which we have -- allegedly --- deciphered as Neolithic astronomy, and which, in our opinion maps the stars of the starry night ca. 4800 B.C.

... with "the legs of the Camel" standing on the Celestial Equator at the Vernal Equinox, the left side of the camel marking the Summer Solstice and the right side of the camel marking the Winter Solstice, with the stars in the heavens being marked by carved figures and cupules (holes viz. indentations carved into stone).

We thank here the website Academia.edu for alerting us to the respective link to the article by Berio as found at https://www.academia.edu/23910738/The_Celestial_River_Identifying_the_Ancient_Egyptian_Constellations.

We are sympathetic to Berio's approach, but our present posting does not engage in individual analysis -- pro or contra -- of the ancient Egyptian Constellations identified in Berio's publication or the system of rising and setting stars that is said there to explain some of the hieroglyphs (viz. "emblems") of the nomes. Each reader can evaluate the material on their own starting at the above link.

Given our own knowledge and understanding of the use of rising and setting stars in ancient astronomy and given our own writings about MUL.APIN : Decipherment as Astronomy (see there for a start), we find that Berio has definitely produced a remarkable and highly interesting analysis which deserves our attention. See in this regard also our year 2004 postings on the astronomical and hermetic significance ("as above, so below") of the nomes of Egypt at:

• The Nomes of Egypt and Astronomy - A - Identification - ANE BC P4 
• The Nomes of Egypt and Astronomy - B - Map of Egyptian Nomes - ANE BC P5 
• The Nomes of Egypt and Astronomy - C - Nome Hieroglyph Chart - ANE BC P6
  

What interests us here as a general matter is the star placement comparison of:

• a map of the heavens that results from our decipherment of the ca. 4800 B.C. Neolithic Northern Arabia Camel Site
  

THE NEOLITHIC CAMEL SITE of NORTHERN ARABIA
ASTRONOMICAL DECIPHERMENT as ca. 4800 B.C. by ANDIS KAULINS

with Berio's Classical star map with Ptolemaic constellations compared to nome emblems overlaid on a map of the sky circa 3100 BC as seen from Memphis (30.57° N).

Classical Star Map with Ptolemaic Stellar Constellations and
Nome Emblems Overlaid on a Sky Map ca. 3100 B.C.
according to Alessandro Berio

 

Our decipherment placement of starry night stars at the Camel Site finds numerous comparables in depiction on the above map of Ancient Egyptian stellar constellations as represented by Berio, though we do not agree on all of them, but that latter is not the issue here. Some DO agree, and that is what is important.

Moreover, in terms of researching the importance of the Ancient Egyptian nomes as hermetic astronomy ("as above, so below"), perhaps marking rising and setting stars, take a look at our Camel Site decipherment finding that the dog, Anubis, is there at the position of the stars of Libra, which stellar location was a mystery to us initially, but which makes sense as a placement given the rising and setting star analysis for nome emblems by Berio, who writes as follows:

"Sirius, the brightest star of Canis Major, was identified with the goddess Isis-Sothis, the Egyptian mother goddess. Diodorus explains that the ritual procession of the Festival of Isis was led by dogs, an association illustrated in a passage by Diodorus:

On the stele of Isis it runs: “I am Isis, the queen of every land… I am she who riseth in the star that is in the Constellation of the Dog; by me was the city of Bubastus built.”

The capital of the 18th nome of Upper Egypt ... was a place for the worship of Anubis, the dog-headed god, as the city was known as the “House of Anubis.” This nome corresponded to the time at which Canis Major’s star, Aludra, known as the “Virgins” to early Arab astronomers, was in its lower culmination, and Spica, the brightest star in Virgo, the virgin, was setting ...."

It would seem, therefore, as a possibility, that the astronomy deciphered by us at the Neolithic Camel Site in Northern Arabia may be a precursor to the hermetic ("as above, so below") astronomy of the later Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt. 

Obviously, the historical ramifications are substantial if the chronological dates in question -- starting with around 4800 B.C. -- are correct. And it also may raise the question of whether the creators of the Camel Site were indigenous inhabitants, or more distant nomads, or, indeed, especially because of the "megalithic" style of portrayal, were perhaps even more distant ancient surveyors, stargazers and/or navigators from elsewhere who first carved the astronomical figures in Northern Arabia.

See in this wider connection our previous postings at:

• The Four Corner Stones of a Land Survey in Ancient Egypt and Arabia: Sais (Sa al Hajar, Rosetta Stone), Nabta Playa (Table Rock Stone), Mecca (Kaaba), Dumat Al-Jandal (Missing Stone) and
  
  
• Sais, the Rosetta Stone, Champollion and Google Earth in the Context of the Alleged Four Corner Stones of Sais, Nabta Playa, Mecca, and Dumat Al-Jandal viz. Sakaka and Al Rajajil
  
  
• The Standing Stones (Megaliths) of Al Rajajil Deciphered as an Ancient Land Survey Triangulation: لرجاجيل في سكاكا al-Rajajeel Archeological Site
  
  

Patents and Human Genes incl. A Nature Magazine Book Review by Heidi Ledford of The Genome Defense: Inside the Epic Legal Battle to Determine Who Owns Your DNA by Jorge L. Contreras

We are happy to report that Nature magazine has a timely book review by Heidi Ledford, reviewing The Genome Defense: Inside the Epic Legal Battle to Determine Who Owns Your DNA, a book authored by Jorge L. Contreras, Algonquin books, Workman.com, 2021. See also, e.g. Amazon.com.

As Nature writes about the book:

""Ably and affectingly detailed . . . This story stands as a guide to the forces that shape an increasingly important industry—and to the vexed influence of patents.” — Nature"

The book author, Jorge L. Contreras, has a seminal opinion editorial ("op-ed") at CNN, Don't let gene patents make a comeback, in which he writes that "gene patenting" was ended in 2013 by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, a decision that has since come under intense pressure by moneyed interests. As Contreras writes at CNN:

"The current prohibition on gene patents, however, could change. The biotechnology industry criticized the Myriad decision when it was released and has worked tirelessly to overturn it, along with other key Supreme Court decisions limiting patents. These opponents claim that unless the reach of patents is expanded, biomedical innovation will be stifled, research will not be funded and lives will be lost. But, as the unprecedented effort to analyze the virus responsible for Covid-19 has shown, this is not true. "

Contreras in that same CNN op-ed correctly writes about the great advantages of patent-free zones in the health and biomedical field:

"In January 2020, when the SARS-CoV-2 virus was first identified, researchers quickly sequenced its genome and uploaded it to the GenBank public database. They then raced to develop vaccines and treatments to combat Covid-19. One thing that enabled them to do so in record time was the absence of patents covering the virus and the hundreds of thousands of genetic variants that have emerged since. Without a doubt, this patent-free zone contributed to the speed at which the scientific community was able to respond to this global threat."

The treatment of human genes in patent law is a topic that -- in our opinion -- has thus far not been adequately covered by mainstream law school journals or legal scholars, although there are signs that they may be awakening out of their slumber. See Book Talk: The Genome Defense: Inside the Epic Legal Battle to Determine Who Owns Your DNA, "Co-sponsored by the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School, Harvard Law School Library, and Harvard Book Store, which is a locally owned, independently run Cambridge landmark since 1932."

Sometimes it seems to us that mainstream law has preferred to focus on what some may consider to be "politically correct" dialogue on various human rights issues involving minorities of every description, ignoring much of the rest of the legal spectrum that applies to both minorities AND majorities. To put it differently, the law also has the duty to protect the rights of average citizens, genes included.

While we do not deny the importance of human rights issues, there are many other important topics in our era that also deserve proper legal attention. The state of patent law as regards human genes is one such deserving topic. Indeed, we have been posting at LawPundit about the sad state of patent law in general for many years, and have specifically argued that human genes are an invention of "the Almighty" (insert the God of your belief here) and should not be patentable in any form, since human genes are not a human invention by any means.

We posted about the Myriad case already early in the court decision process. See Myriad Human Gene Patent Case Vacated and Remanded by U.S. Supreme Court in Light of Prometheus, writing:

"The logic we suggest is: if you cleave an orange in two, you can not claim the two orange halves as inventions, and so it is also with human genes."

In Are Human Genes Patentable? Their Patentability is Once Again on the U.S. Supreme Court Agenda we wrote about the patentability of genes as follows:

"“Are human genes patentable?”

How can the answer be anything but NO?

As posted by Dennis Crouch of Patently-O, Supreme Court has Granted Cert in the Myriad Case, Question: Are Human Genes Patentable.

Timothy B. Lee also has the story at Ars Technica in Supreme Court to rule on patentability of human genes.

We posted previously at LawPundit about this sordid legal farce of greedy companies trying to cash in commercially by claiming “patent” ownership of your genes and mine, as if the two halves of a cleaved orange would be an “invention”‘:

• The Unteachables on the Federal Circuit: If Citizens Are Obligated to Obey Laws They Do Not Agree With, Are Lower Courts Also Not Obligated to Follow the Precedents of the United States Supreme Court Even if The Judges Disagree?
  
• Myriad Human Gene Patent Case Vacated and Remanded by U.S. Supreme Court in Light of Prometheus

It is time for the U.S. Supreme Court to put an end to this nonsense.

The Almighty, whoever that might be or have been, in whatever shape or form, according to whatever religion you preach or not, “invented” the genes, whether via evolution, or creation, or intelligent design, whatever you believe,

it makes no difference,

but the inventor was NOT some human in a laboratory.

We hope the Supremes get that and make it clear to the recalcitrant judges on the Federal Circuit who think everything is a human invention worthy of monopolistic ownership for the profit of the few."

We also discussed the alleged difference between DNA and cDNA in Can Human Genes Be Patented? U.S. Supreme Court Answer Likely to Be "No", but the Ultimate Issue Down the Road is the Patentability of cDNA (Complementary DNA) viz. Is a Split Hair viz. Split Gene an Invention?, writing:

"Is an orange, a lemon, a fig or a tomato split in half and “peeled”, “a patentable invention”? How about a tree split by a logger into firewood? Patent-eligible? How about the patentability of a split hair?
Or is the excerpt of a paragraph of text taken from a book “a new patentable invention” just because it has been “lifted” from the original whole?

What will be the U.S. Supreme Court decision concerning the patentability of human genes and “split genes” in a case currently before the Court as Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., Docket No., 12-398, Argument Date: TBD (“to be determined”), which presents the following question:

“QUESTION PRESENTED:
Many patients seek genetic testing to see if they have mutations in their
genes that are associated with a significantly increased risk of breast or ovarian cancer.  Respondent Myriad Genetics obtained patents on two human genes that correlate to this risk, known as BRCA1 and BRCA2. These patents claim every naturally-occurring version of those genes, including mutations, on the theory that Myriad invented something patent–eligible simply by removing (“isolating”) the genes from the body.  Petitioners are primarily medical professionals who regularly use routine, conventional genetic testing methods to examine genes, but are prohibited from examining the human genes that Myriad claims to own. This case therefore presents the following questions:

1. Are human genes patentable?

2. Did the court of appeals err in upholding a method claim by Myriad that
is irreconcilable with this Court’s ruling in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012)?

3. Did the court of appeals err in adopting a new and inflexible rule,
contrary to normal standing rules and this Court’s decision in MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007), that petitioners who have been indisputably deterred by Myriad’s “active enforcement” of its patent rights nonetheless lack standing to challenge those patents absent evidence that they have been personally threatened with an infringement action?”

What has been invented by man? and what by God?

James D. Watson was the co-discoverer of genetic DNA together with Francis Crick, and both he and Crick and Maurice Wilkins won the 1962 Nobel Prize in Medicine “for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material“.

Watson has filed an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief in this case and has written there as follows:

“Human genes should not be patented…. First, a human gene is fundamentally unique–unlike any ordinary “composition of matter.” A gene conveys information–the instructions for life. As a product of nature, a human gene’s primary purpose is to encode the information for creating proteins, enzymes, cells, and all the other components that make us who we are…. Life’s instructions ought not be controlled by legal monopolies created at the whim of Congress or the courts.

Second, much of what we known about human genes traces back to the Human Genome Project, which was structured as a public works project, intended to benefit everyone by deciphering our genetic code… [M]uch but not all of the human genome was dedicated to the public…. It was a mistake by the Patent Office to issue patents on human genes and a mistake by those who filed for those patents.

Third, human gene patents are not necessary to encourage scientists…. Innovation will be rewarded based on [developments in technologies using human genes], not the patenting of the human gene….

“Human genes…are useful because they convey vital information…..”

In our view, awarding ANYONE any kind of patent or other monopoly on this information, in whole or in part, is simply theft of that universal information. What belongs to all is being stolen for the benefit of the few.

In terms of the law and the patentability of inventions and discoveries, when we talk about any form of human genes, we must ask: where is “the inventive step” or the “non-obvious” human discovery involved when “splitting” genes or “splitting” DNA that already exists? Cutting things apart is not “a discovery”. Imagine if firewood were patentable. Whatever is found was already there.

Andrew Torrance at SCOTUSblog in Nothing under the sun that is made of man suggests that the U.S. Supreme Court “likely” will reject the patenting of human genes in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.
[recommended citation at SCOTUSblog: Andrew Torrance, Nothing under the sun that is made of man, SCOTUSblog (Feb. 7, 2013, 12:24 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/nothing-under-the-sun-that-is-made-of-man/ ]

We agree. See our previous postings on this topic here and here.

Alas, however, that may not solve the “actual” practical legal problem presented in this case, where a finding that human genes are not patentable may not really resolve the real issue in this case.

One must fear, in fact that the U.S. Supreme Court could follow the simplistic and errant line of argumentation of the United States Government in its amicus brief which concludes that:

“The judgment of the court of appeals should be affirmed insofar as it holds that cDNA is patent-eligible, and reversed insofar as it holds that isolated but otherwise unmodified DNA is patent-eligible.”

The U.S. Government is thus urging that unmodified DNA be seen as a product of nature, but “modified” DNA be seen as “an invention”, even if that invention consists primarily of using and monopolizing code information that has always been there in the original product of nature.

We ourselves would never tolerate such an illogically split result, but it is a result which might be seen to provide Supreme Court Justices with “an easy out” in this case, replacing individual critical thinking by the judges.

In this manner they could issue a holding meeting “popular” demand that human genes are not patentable, but could at the same time then nevertheless carve out a large and significant “hair-splitting” viz. “gene-splitting” patent exception for “split-off” DNA. We might compare this to a teaspoon of sugar spread on a split lemon. NOT found in nature. Or we might compare it to a clipped paragraph from a book to which proprietary introductory and closing texts are newly appended to create “a new invention”.

If such a terrible decision on the law were to issue from the current U.S. Supreme Court, one would subsequently have no recourse but to argue that even if cDNA were found patent-eligible (as “split” from original human genes) it would nevertheless not be patentable because the “splitting” is obvious.

Making patentability in this field dependent on the obviousness of the splitting would, however, be a very unsatisfactory standard. To government institutions such as the USPTO and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, apparently virtually “NOTHING” appears to be obvious.

The U.S. Government writes in its amicus brief about cDNA as follows:

“Petitioners contend (Br. 49-53) that cDNAs are not patent-eligible because they contain the same protein-coding information — i.e., exon sequences — as DNA in the body. But the properties of any product originally derived from nature, including the bacterium in Chakrabarty, can be traced to the operation of natural principles. While the coding properties of cDNA molecules’ exons are determined by nature, those properties operate within a molecule (a DNA strand with the regulatory and intron regions spliced out) that does not exist in nature and that has increased utility relative to naturally occurring genetic materials or isolated but unmodified DNA. The fact that a cDNA incorporates nucleotide sequences whose significance is derived from nature therefore does not mean that the molecule as a whole is a product of nature.⁵ See Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187.”

__________

⁵ It is possible that, given the prevailing level of knowledge in biotechnological fields, future patent applications directed to cDNAs and other synthesized DNA molecules may rejected as obvious. 35 U.S.C. 103; see In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1358-1361 (Fed. Cir. 2009).”

If cDNA code information were found to be patent eligible in general as being “split” from an original non-patentable gene (as if the coded part were more patentable than the coded whole), the patent approach pointed out in footnote 5 would then be the correct one as a patent defense.

It would then in fact be the ONLY defense remaining, since “creating” cDNA’s
— for those who want to call it “creating” rather than “splitting away from” —
is child’s play these days if you have the right kit.

Indeed, creating cDNA is so simply done that it has already generated a lively market for “cDNA Synthesis Kits”. Just plug that term into Google to view links to any number of them.

We quote from the SMART cDNA Synthesis Kit description online:

“SMART (Switching Mechanism at 5’ End of RNA Template) is a unique technology that allows the efficient incorporation of known sequences at both ends of cDNA during first strand synthesis, without adaptor ligation. The presence of these known sequences is crucial for a number of downstream applications including amplification, RACE, and library construction. While a wide variety of technologies can be employed to take advantage of these known sequences, the simplicity and efficiency of the single-step SMART process permits unparalleled sensitivity and ensures that full-length cDNA is generated and amplified.“

As written at the Wikipedia:

“In genetics, complementary DNA (cDNA) is DNA synthesized from a messenger RNA (mRNA) template in a reaction catalysed by the enzymes reverse transcriptase and DNA polymerase.^[1] cDNA is often used to clone eukaryotic genes in prokaryotes. When scientists want to express a specific protein in a cell that does not normally express that protein (i.e., heterologous expression), they will transfer the cDNA that codes for the protein to the recipient cell. cDNA is also produced by retroviruses (such as HIV-1, HIV-2, Simian Immunodeficiency Virus, etc.) which is integrated into its host’s genome where it creates a provirus….

Though there are several methods for doing so, cDNA is most often synthesized from mature (fully spliced) mRNA using the enzyme reverse transcriptase. This enzyme operates on a single strand of mRNA, generating its complementary DNA based on the pairing of RNA base pairs (A, U, G and C) to their DNA complements (T, A, C and G respectively).

To obtain eukaryotic cDNA whose introns have been removed:

1. A eukaryotic cell transcribes the DNA (from genes) into RNA (pre-mRNA).
2. The same cell processes the pre-mRNA strands by removing introns, and adding a poly-A tail and 5’ Methyl-Guanine cap.
3. This mixture of mature mRNA strands is extracted from the cell. The Poly-A tail of the post transcription mRNA can be taken advantage of with oligo(dT) beads in an affinity chromatography assay.
4. A poly-T oligonucleotide primer is hybridized onto the poly-A tail of the mature mRNA template, or random hexamer primers can be added which contain every possible 6 base single strand of DNA and can therefore hybridize anywhere on the RNA (Reverse transcriptase requires this double-stranded segment as a primer to start its operation.)
5. Reverse transcriptase is added, along with deoxynucleotide triphosphates (A, T, G, C). This synthesizes one complementary strand of DNA hybridized to the original mRNA strand.
6. To synthesize an additional DNA strand, you need to digest the RNA of the hybrid strand, using an enzyme like RNase H, or through alkali digestion method.
7. After digestion of the RNA, a single stranded DNA (ssDNA) is left and because single stranded nucleic acids are hydrophobic, it tends to loop around itself. It is likely that the ssDNA forms a hairpin loop at the 3′ end.
8. From the hairpin loop, a DNA polymerase can then use it as a primer to transcribe a complementary sequence for the ss cDNA.
9. Now, you should be left with a double stranded cDNA with identical sequence as the mRNA of interest.

The reverse transcriptase scans the mature mRNA and synthesizes a sequence of DNA that complements the mRNA template. This strand of DNA is complementary DNA.“

In other words, cDNA is simply a modified form of mRNA that is “created” from KNOWN coded information according to fixed rules that are essentially the same for all cDNAs. There is NO INVENTION as such. Unpatentable coded information is simply “reformatted”. That does not make the info patentable.

We ourselves would not find cDNA itself patent eligible in ANY form. Rather, if anything should be patented here, it is the cDNA synthesis kits — and ONLY these.

The correct decision in this case is to view human genes — as explained by James D. Watson previously — as living strands of coded information. The innumerable parts of that coded information make up a gigantic book, i.e. the book of the coded instructions for life, for making a human being. Taking a clip of that information out of that book and perhaps cutting off the chapter heading or dropping the ending period of a sentence still does not make that text or information a new “invention” of any man or commercial undertaking.

It remains at all times the SAME coded original information of nature, and hence is NOT patentable, in ANY form. So our opinion."

Neolithic Northern Arabia Archaeoastronomical "Camel Site Decipherment Image" by Andis Kaulins Updated October 20, 2021

Please note:

The graphic Neolithic Northern Arabia Archaeoastronomical
"Camel Site Decipherment Image" by Andis Kaulins
presented in full in previous postings
was updated on October 20, 2021 with some additions
and improved color management of the figures,
thus, for example, retaining a clear view of the legs of the camel.

See the updated decipherment.

The Neolithic Rock Art "Camel Site" in Arabia Deciphered as Astronomy: Interactive Lesson #6: Our Full Decipherment Image

The Neolithic Rock Art "Camel Site" in Arabia Deciphered as Astronomy

Please note: the graphic below
was updated with some corrected star placements on October 20, 2021.

Our Interactive Lesson #6 consists of our independent archaeoastronomical decipherment of the Rock Art so-called "Camel Site" located in Northern Arabia.

This is the last interactive lesson in this series of postings, which we will follow up with some explanatory postings about various aspects of our decipherment below. 

There are many unexpected surprises, especially for the era in question.

Look at the decipherment graphic and draw your own conclusions.

The Neolithic Rock Art "Camel Site" in Arabia:
Interactive Lesson #6: Our Full Decipherment Image
The Camel Site Portrays the Night Starry Sky
ca. 4800 B.C. by Figures

Click on the graphic below
to obtain a larger, more readable image! 

Please note that the graphic below
was updated on October 20, 2021
with improved color management of the figures
and some corrected star placements

 

The Neolithic Rock Art Camel Site in Arabia: Interactive Lesson #5: Auriga the Goatherd Left of Perseus and Cepheus, Cassiopeia, and Andromeda Right of Perseus

The Neolithic Rock Art Camel Site in Arabia: Interactive Lesson #5: Auriga to the Left of Perseus and Carved Figures and Cupule Stars to the Right of Perseus

The stars of Auriga at the Camel Site are represented by the head of a goatherd with typical headdress, plus the head (and fleece ?) of an adult goat with several goat kids. This corroborates the correctness of our previous placement of the stars of Perseus to the right of Auriga. The fleece viz. the "wool" of Auriga is carved in the rock in an appropriate "ruffled" texture way. The adult goat appears to have several goat kids behind it, plus maybe a goat dog ("sheepdog") to the back left. 

The Neolithic Rock Art Camel Site in Arabia: Interactive Lesson #5
Auriga the Goatherd is to the Left of Perseus
Auriga includes a Goat head profile and several goat kids, plus goatherd dog.
Cepheus, Cassiopeia, and Andromeda are to the Right of Perseus

Please click on the graphic below to obtain a larger image.

The figures to the right of Perseus are more difficult to assign with certainty, as they are very strongly characterized by the megalithic style of carving figures within figures within figures, which makes identification more speculative.

We think those figures mark stars of what we moderns identify as the stellar constellations of Cepheus, Cassiopeia, wife of Cepheus, and their daughter Andromeda -- a heavenly family as it were -- whose origins, e.g., in Egypt, and even by mainstream archaeology, reach back far and at least into predynastic ("pre-Pharaoh") times. Just how old these heavenly figures assigned to groups of stars in the starry sky actually are -- nobody really knows, but it is clear from the Neolithic Rock Art Camel Site in Arabia that they are much older then previously thought by the mainstream of researchers.

Just as an aside:
We think the term Auriga originally meant "sheep, lamb" as arguably in what we see as a hypothetical proto-Indo-European root found e.g. in Latvian jēr- jēruk- (=*aurig-) meaning "of (a) lamb".

The Latin meaning of "charioteer" may arise out of a linguistic confusion of "auriga" with e.g. the root of a word like "quadriga" and similar terms, which at their root have the meaning "yoke" in proto-Indo-European, as in archaic Latvian "jūgs, jūg-".

The next posting in this series is Interactive Lesson #6. 

Can you already find the stars portrayed on the left side of the carved rock but not yet identified?

The Camel Site in Northern Arabia: Interactive Lesson #4: More Figures at Perseus and Stars of the Camel Leg to the Left

The Camel Site in Arabia: Interactive Lesson #4: More Figures at Perseus and the Stars of the Leg to the Left

In the image below we see the figure of Perseus, and an additional coiled (?) figure below it -- above the Hyena -- that emerges when we look at the stone-carved figures in detail.

THE STARS OF PERSEUS (IN FULL) AT THE CAMEL SITE
AND THE STARS OF THE CAMEL'S LEG TO ITS LEFT

Click on the image to view a larger image version.

Perseus appears to wear a military-type (?) plumed hat and we can only ask ourselves if the figure below him is Medusa or a serpent-type figure, for this is very speculative and not perfectly clear. Such a hat is not likely to date back to 4800 B.C. Perhaps such figures were added later in time, in another era, by ancients who knew which stars the carved Camel Site represented in the sky.

Posting #5 of this decipherment series on the Camel Site of Northern Arabia follows, deciphering figures and stars to the right of Perseus, including the camel's leg to the right.

The Camel Site in Northern Arabia: Interactive Lesson #3: Where are the Stars of Perseus Marked by a Figure and Cupmarks? And Where is the Hyena?

Once one recognizes that the large camel at the Camel Site marks the Celestial Equator, the Celestial Meridian and the Celestial North Pole by its features...

and if we also have a good idea of the date of the human stone carving work...

then the general positions of the stars at the Camel Site are inevitable...

because their position is thereby determined by the major astronomical parameters.

The stars can not be elsewhere, and we can thus not place them subjectively,

although it is also true, however, that individual stars may be difficult to identify with perfect certainty. Everything is not always as easy as it appears.

We started out with the figure and cupmarks of the stars of Perseus because their placement at the Camel Site is eminently obvious. Just look at the Starry Night Pro star map below, a stellar map which we have already posted previously. Find Perseus on that star map and you will then know where to look for Perseus at the Camel Site stone relief.

THE STARRY SKY SECTION REPRESENTED AT THE CAMEL SITE
MARKS STARS AT AND ABOVE THE CELESTIAL EQUATOR ca. 4800 B.C.
Image clip 2021 A.D. by Andis Kaulins via Starry Night Pro astronomy software

 Click on the image to view a larger image version.
(image updated on 7 October 2021)

As one can see from above, Perseus is to the far right of the Vernal Equinox on that 4800 B.C. star map and that is where we expect to find Perseus represented on the large camel at the Camel Site ... and so it is, as seen below.

THE CAMEL SITE MARKS THE STARS OF PERSEUS
TO THE RIGHT OF THE VERNAL EQUINOX in 4800 B.C.
AND ITS LOWER STARS SHOW A HYENA NIPPING AT THE HEEL OF THE CAMEL
We have previously written that:
"Significant for our discussion of ancient celestial poles
is the fact that the Arabic Bedouins in Egypt, instead of a dragon,
saw a circle of camels at heaven’s center that was being attacked by hyenas."
https://megalithicworld.wordpress.com/2007/11/14/horusfalconcultasastronomy/

 Click on the image to view a larger image version.

The arguably older representation is the tapered relief-carved figure of Perseus.
The arguably younger presentation consists of cupmarks
(carved holes in stone) of the brighter stars of Perseus,
as still used in modern astronomy to portray the figure of Perseus in the sky.

The hyena at the heel of the camel -- supporting ancient heavenly depiction --
is proof of the correctness of our decipherment of "The Camel Site" in Arabia.

 Lesson #4 is forthcoming in the next posting.

 

The Camel Site in Northern Arabia: Interactive Lesson #2: What is the Camel Carrying? The Camel Carries the Starry Sky

The Neolithic Rock Art Camel Site in Northern Arabia as Astronomy:
Interactive Lesson #2:
What is the Camel Carrying?
The camel carries the starry sky.

The mid-center Celestial Meridian as the prominent left foreleg of the camel and the top of the camel's hump at the location of the North Celestial Pole indicate that the camel carries the stars in the sky, i.e. the vault of heaven.

Arab sources of antiquity place the camel at a position near the North Celestial Pole. Citing to Richard Hinckley's Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning (Dover edition, 1963)

We have previously written that:

"Significant for our discussion of ancient celestial poles is the fact that the Arabic Bedouins in Egypt, instead of a dragon, saw a circle of camels at heaven’s center that was being attacked by hyenas."

See:
https://megalithicworld.wordpress.com/2007/11/14/horusfalconcultasastronomy/

Before we present our decipherments, the reader may try to identify stars represented at the Camel Site by carved figures and holes carved in stone to represent bright stars or groups of bright stars. Good luck!

Groups of stars can be represented by figures, as we still do in modernity by the stellar constellations.

But stars can also be represented individually by "cupmarks" (cupules, holes carved in stone to represent stars).

Usually -- the larger the hole, the brighter the magnitude of the star.

Please note:

The carved figures at the Camel Site are likely to be older than the identifiable cupmarks, which appear to be younger, because they cover less space than the corresponding figures. We see this at the representation of the stars of Perseus, which we add to our decipherment image in the next posting.

This same phenomenon is found at sites such as Lascaux in France -- but, to our knowledge, is something not recognized by mainstream archaeologists -- where cave paintings cover rocks that were already previously carved to mark the same stars as the later paintings.

People often see what they want to see or things easy to see ... and miss the rest. No less an observer than Albert Einstein said that he had little patience with scientists who drilled only where the drilling is easy.

The Neolithic Rock Art Camel Site in Northern Arabia as Astronomy: Interactive Lesson #1: Where does the Camel Stand? It Stands on the Celestial Equator

The Neolithic Rock Art Camel Site in Northern Arabia as Astronomy:
Interactive Lesson #1:
Where does the Camel Stand?
It Stands on the Celestial Equator

Our interactive decipherment begins with a clip of the section of sky that we regard to be represented by carved figures and cupmarks at "The Camel Site"
-- figures and holes carved in stone to mark bright stars viz. star groups.

The starry sky corresponding to the stars represented by the Camel Site is found
in the image below -- applying to stars ca. at or above the Celestial Equator on which the camel stands ... carrying the heavens. Our image clip from Starry Night Pro astronomy software is the year 4800 B.C., close to the dates of ca. 5600 to 5200 BCE estimated by archaeologists for human inhabitation of the site.

THE STARRY SKY SECTION REPRESENTED AT THE CAMEL SITE
MARKS STARS AT AND ABOVE THE CELESTIAL EQUATOR ca. 4800 B.C.
Image clip 2021 A.D. by Andis Kaulins via Starry Night Pro astronomy software

 Click on the image to view a larger image version.
(image updated on 7 October 2021)

The Celestial Equator in the star map above is the red nearly horizontal line running through the Vernal Equinox. The Celestial Equator at the Camel Site is the line drawn below -- and identified by us -- upon which the camel stands:

THE CAMEL SITE CELESTIAL EQUATOR ON WHICH THE CAMEL STANDS

Click on the image to view a larger image version.

That line provides the foundation for the astronomical decipherment. Once such an important astronomical parameter is correctly identified, the rest follows. 

See if you can now identify the stars represented at the Camel Site without referring to our decipherment. You have the star map above.

This posting begins a series of experimental interactive presentations of our recent, independent, and unaffiliated archaeoastronomical decipherment of the so-called archaeological "Camel Site" in Northern Arabia...

as that site is described by the following authors
Maria Guagnin, Guillaume Charloux, Abdullah M. AlSharekh, Rémy Crassard, Yamandú H. Hilbert, Meinrat O. Andreae, Abdullah AlAmri, Frank Preusser, Fulbert Dubois, Franck Burgos, Pascal Flohr, Pascal Mora, Ahmad AlQaeed, and Yasser AlAli...

in their article
Life-sized Neolithic camel sculptures in Arabia: A scientific assessment of the craftsmanship and age of the Camel Site reliefs, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 2021, 103165, ISSN 2352-409X
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103165 as found published online at...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X21003771.

More Camel Site photos are also published at Artnet.com in Thousands of Years Before the Pyramids, Neolithic Peoples Were Carving Camels into Saudi Arabia’s Rocky Desert, an article by Sarah Cascone online at :

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/ancient-saudi-arabian-camel-carvings-are-actually-older-than-stonehenge-and-the-pyramids-of-giza-2012754

In order to avoid copyright image issues -- we make our own drawings for use in the course of our decipherment and refer readers to original photographs in the above cited sources for review. We have no affiliation with any of the above.

We now look at the Celestial Meridian and Celestial North Pole in Lesson #2, i.e. the next posting. The question is: What is the Camel Carrying?