Featured Title:
Cave Of Forgotten Dreams on DVD |
 |
| Great Stone Circles, Aubrey Burl |
 |
| Login |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like your own home page, fewer ads, and your contributions link to your page. |
| Who's Online |
There are currently, 113 guests and 5 members online.
You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here |
| |
| Review your Reply |
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2708
 OFF-Line
|  New Message Posted!2011-08-31 13:22
Harry , simply point out the errors and we can deal with them one by one . If there is any mistake simply refute them do not just say they are wrong . I'm sure if you could prove something to be wrong you would and not simply run away from what you perceive as wrongful criticism .
Maybe you unaware that the OS do have deliberate mistakes on maps as well as inaccuracies that are unintentional .
After all it is what you have written about that is under discussion and there are a lot more than one just error . I have stuck to what is can be falsified and it has taken a very long time and a lot of abuse to get these problems accepted .It doesn't bear thinking about what a general criticism about the content would take .But fwiw .
The idea is predicated on 1)The azimuth between two Standing Stones over 20 Km apart which is related to 2) a line from one of the standing stones on a bearing due east consisting of two hills and two churches . The relationship between 1 and 2 is then applied to 3) an alternative reading of Hesiod’s mention of the Pleaides .
The problems with each of these are .
1)There are cases where the bearing between two standing stones are accepted as being indications of where to look towards the horizon for a putative astronomical alignment but they have to be in sight of each other to work , there are no examples in archaeoastronomy where unsighted points are accepted and none where it is merely the bearing that is noteworthy never mind a combination of the two .At a distance of over 20 Km this is nearly 4 times greater than the width of the Stonehenge landscape encompassed within the world heritage site .
2) Although described as equinoctial it is not based on the point where the sun sets as seen from the standing stone and is actually due west .Apart from the standing stone none of the other components have any prehistoric connections and despite being described as precise the churches do miss the line in one case by nearly 30 metres while the hills are not exactly precise markers as they are transverse to the bearing and in one case occupying 3 degrees of the horizon
3) Hesiod’s statement regarding the disappearance of the Pleaides for 40 days is considered to be a misunderstanding , in this reading he never meant 40 consecutive days but two periods of 20 days . This is despite the disappearance of the Pleiades for circa 40 days being an element of widespread astro lore all over the world and never once contradicted by astronomers or commentators on Hesiod , furthermore there is no supporting evidence from any other sources for the this alternative Hesiod reading either from commentators or astronomers .
Problems with just one of the above undermines the house of cards but when all three have problems ….
The Pleiades from and over a hill is commonplace ,I have mentioned examples where this will occur involving Silbury hill and standing stones in the Gower ,in on case both rise and set from a standing stone on the same day .
It is one thing to miscalculate and get things wrong when relying on software but when the judgements are made that could and should be checked in the field there is no excuse . If you can write stuff like Twm is visible from LRSS or Grey Hill is the on the horizon from Twm it seems inconceivable that these comments weren’t based on first hand experience , if you can get them wrong it is hardly surprising that you can’t find the circa 40 days on an astro prog .
George
|
Sivertsen
Joined:
04-07-2010
Messages: 72
from Pontwaun
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2011-08-31 12:43
George,
Having rechecked just to confirm, the 20 days is correct allowing for the metres difference in elevation etc etc . The date applied is 2500BC and all works at Druidstone as as I have stated.
This is accurate.
How on earth you manage to get get your lesser count of days I do not understand.
As the value of 20 days here is correct then the same applies to the reciprocal angle to Twmbarlwm where of course the hilltop involved is quite large and a margin of error applies. However, the 20 days is accommodated on the top of the hill.
Hence the 20 days either side of equinox stands, it is correct and the total of course is 40 days, the well known but not understood Pleiades association.
Hence, as I have stated, as the 40 days is set out there ought to be a Pleiades association elsewhere here else why just the 40 days?
So where may this Pleiades association be? Almost certainly it will be associated with Twmbarlwm in some way as this hill is associated with the count of days and if not a view from the top then a view from lower down perhaps on the ridge. Perhaps cairn to cairn Twmbarlwm to Gray Hill which would apply sometime around 2600BC and would be appropriate? Why not? Cairns at each end? It requires exploration at least.
The point is that apart from the difference in spatial relationships between sun and Pleiades where I have admitted an error, all works as I have stated to an approximate degree and only requires refinement to make it really accurate. This refinement could be a view over Gray Hill from just beneath the motte at the 390 metre level or further over at the cairn position.
George it is noticeable that whenever I find something astray with your workings you rapidly write about something else. I noted that we are both at fault with elevations over Bertholau and Gray Hill. Your elevations across the hills were wrong and so were mine albeit not so far out as yours yet you do not recognised that fact but you change the subject and turn it around to a different discussion about viewing anywhere below the hilltop.
You will not admit your own errors and you have even accused OS of 'deliberate mistakes'. You repeatedly make firm statements that I have shown to be wrong via OS maps and do not admit when your evaluations are at fault as they often have been. You have used Google Earth for evaluations [your own citations]even after we agreed it is not sufficiently accurate.
You have failed to substantiate the 40 days Pleiades disappearance that you doggedly claim occurred, based only upon hearsay. I could give other examples of such 'facts' from history but I shall not waste my time as you are not interested anyway.
George I could carry on with criticism.
I have admitted when I have made an error but clearly you are not man enough to admit your own failings and doggedly make statements implying that you are correct and others are wrong. George you have often been wrong in this debate and not once have you admitted it.
I shall not continue this discussion as you are so doggedly determined not to admit an error and to refute whatever suggestion I may make that it is a complete waste of time.
Your negative attitude was apparent at the beginning and has not wavered. I can accept doubt in a theory but not a dogmatic attitude that even fails to admit errors made when they are apparent.
George you simply cannot toss out ideas simply because there is no positive proof for their validity. Develop an idea and search out the evidence. Here the evidence of a Pleiades association is seen in the 40 days connection which you have attempted to contradict but have failed in your attempt. The stones are placed exactly in the correct positions for this count . The fact that they cannot be seen one from the other makes no material difference, human beings do such things, they mark locations and events, so a lack of viewing availability cannot be used as as a counter argument, it does not prove anything.
There is no point in any continuation of this debate for reasons that are outlined above. As far as I am concerned the stones are placed where they are to show the 40 days connection and that will remain until some other valid explanations arises. Certain no explanation of any value has appeared except for the 40 days and you have failed to disprove that. You can claim that the value is 17 or 18 days for as long as you wish, I know that you are completely wrong as will anyone else who accurately plots positions and runs the picture at 2500BC on an astro program making due allowance for elevation etc.
That being the case the picture remains as I have described it , the 40 days applies as also does the 20 days association with the equinox. Your arguments here fall flat George while my evaluation holds. Pleiades may well have been viewed from Twmbarlwm as I have suggested or from the cairn position. I shall investigate further as I have stated.
I shall close this debate here and thank Andy for putting my work on board.
Harry
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2708
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2011-08-31 12:04
Harry ,you are the one who made a fuss about the line , describing it as an “equinoctial line” and precise . I suggest that it is meaningless .
Wilcrick Hill ,which has always been marked as 69m by the OS from the earliest days 6 inch to the mile until the most recent (2008) that I have seen , would not be seen from LRSS , if it has gained 11 metres in the last decade then it would be seen ,but I have yet to see a map with that spot height .Regardless the churches and Mynydd Meio would not be seen from the stone . Furthermore none of the sites have any relevance to the probable B.A. standing stone . Two Norman churches , one which by your own admission is off the line by 80 feet despite being claimed as being “on this precise line“ and two hills with nothing significant about them apart from being roughly east of the stone .I thought we had heard the last of them ,it is a pure old fashioned “Ley Line “ “discovered by looking at maps at home ,mixing monuments from different periods and including natural features that occupy a few degrees making them easier targets (unlike the summit of Skiddaw ) and when it comes to anything that might narrow the “line “ down to anything precise they invariably prove to miss the target . Such abstractions are a result of moderns playing about with maps and teach us nothing about how people in prehistory interacted with the landscape or their cosmology .
George
|
Sivertsen
Joined:
04-07-2010
Messages: 72
from Pontwaun
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2011-08-31 11:04
George
If this straight line does not matter why make such a fuss about it. You have rejected the idea of such a straight line being valid when the human eye simply does not see around corners as would be necessary to follow the line of latitude as you appear to believe is more important.
The line from LRSS ran over Wilcrick Hill which before modern developments showed above the horizon as a neat mound [yet you have claimed could not be seen] and from there to Mynydd Meoi..one straight line which passed some 80 odd feet sputh of the entrance to the porch of Lower Machen church. Where is the problem with that?
Harry
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2708
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2011-08-29 18:27
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-29 17:21, Sivertsen wrote:
So in effect, the Pleiades have been seen as important to most cultures on Earth. Britain is no different. We need only find the associations to see from where and how this cluster was observed.
Harry
|
|
There has been recent mention of examples in the Gower and and another involving involving Silbury hill .
George
And it looks like Cumbria may have an even earlier example , involving two of the counties finest Neolithic monuments and prominent hill top.
LRSS – Druidstone =257 .36 degrees . As this is an abstraction in that the stones are 20 km apart and obviously can’t be seen how can we tell which day to choose as the sun will seen at that same bearing from the LRSS on many days before the spring equinox but interestingly 19 and 18 days not 20 before the equinox are the most precise but it will still be seen at that point 17-15 days before too , only slightly above the horizon . An example of how playing about with maps ,angles and numbers can produce ,what might be for some , meaningful data is that exactly the same equinox relationship can be found in Cumbria , Mayburgh henge to Castlerigg stone circle has the same bearing as LRSS to Druidstone and Mayburgh due east or more fancifully on the “precise equinox line “ leads to the summit of Skiddaw , was the placement of Castlerigg due to the count of 20 days from the equinox ,coincidence etc .?
N.B. while the data is accurate the interpretation is flippant , believe it if you like , but it is merely to show how easy this sort of thing is to find .
George
[ This message was edited by: tiompan on 2011-08-29 18:39 ]
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2708
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2011-08-29 18:02
Harry , you said “I have REPEATEDLY pointed out that line of sight, a straight line from Mynydd Meio to LRST is what applies “
That statement makes no sense ,there is no line of sight from LRSS to Myndd Meio .
You have only admitted that “line “ does not go through the church once iirc.
Not that it matters but if you had read earlier posts you might noticed that I do “use” digital mapping , probably long before you did , a fun toy and useful . GE , digital mapping and astro progs have their uses and inaccuracies but the bigger problem is how they are used , that is what leads to the mistakes .
George
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2708
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2011-08-29 17:42
Harry , the Goose Green radio mast horizon has minimal effect on any values for the dates or altitudes all it means is that Grey Hill is not the horizon and when the Pleiades are seen it is over Goose Green not Grey Hill . If you go lower down the hill to make Grey Hill the horizon you may as well not bothered going up the hill in the first place as if noting the Pleiades was what mattered then anybody could have done so by simply looking in the right direction at the right time , no need to go up hills at all .
George
|
Sivertsen
Joined:
04-07-2010
Messages: 72
from Pontwaun
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2011-08-29 17:41
George,
You do like to point to others being wrong but fail to admit your own errors and omissions.
I have REPEATEDLY pointed out that line of sight, a straight line from Mynydd Meio to LRST is what applies. The same latitude as either end of this line, as I have repeatedly pointed out gives the positioned 84 feet from the porch entrance at Lower Machen..You have completely missed the importance of line of sight here.
To recap.
A straight line from LRSS to Mynydd Meio. At Mynydd Meio the line terminates at the centre of the sun position when the sun's northern edge is at the top of the southern slope of the hill. Sun centre position is then the same latitude on the hill as the latitude of LRSS.
As latitude follows the curvature of Earth at Lower Machen there is an 84 foot difference at the latitude of LRSS and Mynydd Meio position to this straight line. This is a fact that is abundantly clear on all OS maps and charts I have examined as I have explained. Yet you apparently continue to refute the OS information.
I suggest you get hold of some computerised mapping and check this out on something a bit more reliable than Google Earth. That
program does give lat /long positions accurately and will also give measures between locations accurately but is not sufficiently accurate for direction or laying on a straight line. It sometimes produces a straight line and sometimes does not is my experience and the north pointer when set results in false direction readings when a line or path is drawn, again as I have already pointed out and where you agreed with the lack of accuracy of the program; yet you now cite GE as a source, a source that you previously claimed was inaccurate.
Please, use something more accurate than GE as you will not produce accurate results with it...as has already been seen and in fact was agreed with by yourself.
Harry
|
Sivertsen
Joined:
04-07-2010
Messages: 72
from Pontwaun
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2011-08-29 17:41
George,
You do like to point to others being wrong but fail to admit your own errors and omissions.
I have REPEATEDLY pointed out that line of sight, a straight line from Mynydd Meio to LRST is what applies. The same latitude as either end of this line, as I have repeatedly pointed out gives the positioned 84 feet from the porch entrance at Lower Machen..You have completely missed the importance of line of sight here.
To recap.
A straight line from LRSS to Mynydd Meio. At Mynydd Meio the line terminates at the centre of the sun position when the sun's northern edge is at the top of the southern slope of the hill. Sun centre position is then the same latitude on the hill as the latitude of LRSS.
As latitude follows the curvature of Earth at Lower Machen there is an 84 foot difference at the latitude of LRSS and Mynydd Meio position to this straight line. This is a fact that is abundantly clear on all OS maps and charts I have examined as I have explained. Yet you apparently continue to refute the OS information.
I suggest you get hold of some computerised mapping and check this out on something a bit more reliable than Google Earth. That
program does give lat /long positions accurately and will also give measures between locations accurately but is not sufficiently accurate for direction or laying on a straight line. It sometimes produces a straight line and sometimes does not is my experience and the north pointer when set results in false direction readings when a line or path is drawn, again as I have already pointed out and where you agreed with the lack of accuracy of the program; yet you now cite GE as a source, a source that you previously claimed was inaccurate.
Please, use something more accurate than GE as you will not produce accurate results with it...as has already been seen and in fact was agreed with by yourself.
Harry
|
Sivertsen
Joined:
04-07-2010
Messages: 72
from Pontwaun
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2011-08-29 17:21
Sem
People in the distant past found the sky of utmost importance not only for calendar purposes and on the coasts for tidal associations with moon, but in fact this was the only stable element in the life of anyone, [comets and meteorites apart].
Counts of days told of when various things were about to happen in the sky and hence calendars developed. etc etc.
Why the Pleiades should have been of great importance I cant say other than an association with vernal equinox was noticed and this was associated with plant growth,but the fact is that many cultures and regions made reference to the Pleiades. There are legends about the Pleiades including the infamous 40 days disappearance which apparently no one has verified but only repeated what others have stated.
While I am convinced that this disappearance of 40 days did not happen, [lesser periods yes, as I have shown, but not 40 days] the fact is that the 40 days has been associated with the Pleiades for an indeterminate period the stems from long before the time of Hesiod and hence as we have an accurate replication of the 40 days on the ground here in Gwent, and as the Roman engineers copied the relevant angles at Caerwent and Cardiff for important building projects, ie the axis of Caerwent and Cardiff Castle[why have not archaeologists noted this ?] then it seems highly likely that this 40 days was locally associated with Pleiades.
While the 40 days is not mentioned in any of the following references [unless I have missed it] there is ample evidence of the importance of the Pleiades to cultures from Australia to Peru to the more familiar northern regions.
So ample use of the Pleiades in the past and even more reason to search out any associations in early Britain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maia_(mythology)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A45377463
http://www.symbolicmessengers.com/planetsym.htm
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PF4Z4H7gIs4C&pg=PA318&lpg=PA318&dq=romans+and+the+PLeiades&source=bl&ots=vpFlCdmnkN&sig=SIN0BE2VaZPXUqjRfeFIQIgIeq4&hl=en&ei=kbNbTs-bHsqz8QPhntm_DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFcQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=romans%20and%20the%20PLeiades&f=false
Given the evidence in the references above, it seem highly probable if not certain that the Pleiades were observed locally, probably from Twmbarlwm as that is associated with the said count of days.
I view this as a logical argument and have attempted to ascertain when and how the Pleiades would have been viewed. Simple as that.
Certainly the hill of Twmbarlwm has been in use for an extended period, as you state, flint implements have been discovered there; it is prominent locally and even without the Norman motte the high area at its western end is prominent and would probably have been used in some manner for astronomical observation. So now there are two likely associations with Twmbarlwm. The region of Gray Hill provides the third.
The reasons would be the same as with numerous other cultures and regions across the world. A number of calendar references are made to the asterism from a wide area including India where for such viewings dates to an early period, prior to dynastic Egypt.
So in effect, the Pleiades have been seen as important to most cultures on Earth. Britain is no different. We need only find the associations to see from where and how this cluster was observed.
Harry
| |
|
Main News