A modern person interprets this as a sky map. But it some round and cresent shapes on a field of dots. Not sure they drew the sky like that in the Bronze age? What evidence is there, that it's supposed to represent the sky?
The stars are no evidence. A bunch of dots can be stretched to fit any star configuration you please.
And there are way too many crescents. What, did we have three moons back then? And none of them are shaped anything like the actual moon looks at any time.
I’m sure the authors of this paper that was published in one of the premiere scientific journals and the authors of all of the works they cite did not consider these elementary questions whatsoever and will appreciate your insight.
Why would you ask the other commenters on Hacker News this, to try to work it out from first principles? It looked more like you were trying to cast doubt on the work these scientists have done because you’re either reflexively contrarian, think they’re making it up, or both.
If you really want to know, the paper has citations, and those references will have citations as well.
The Wikipedia entry includes notes on the hypothesized history of modifications to the disk. For example, the non-solar arcs were probably added later (different gold). So the original version had just the lunar crescent.
The stars are no evidence. A bunch of dots can be stretched to fit any star configuration you please.
And there are way too many crescents. What, did we have three moons back then? And none of them are shaped anything like the actual moon looks at any time.
Hm.