Featured Title:
See Your Book Here |
 |
| Standing with Stones film for download or pay per view |
 |
| 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, 122 guests and 3 members online.
You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here |
| |
Forum: Stones Forum
Moderated by : Andy B , TimPrevett , coldrum , Klingon , MickM , TheCaptain , bat400 , davidmorgan , Runemage , SolarMegalith , sem
Respond to: Stonehenge Lintel Awareness Campaign
|
| Review your Reply |
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 819
from UK
 OFF-Line
|  New Message Posted!2013-01-13 17:00
Quote:
| "a monument to" observed facts/beliefs, a monument which also might incorporate and demonstrate those facts and/or beliefs. Stonehenge seems to me to be a monument to something, whatever other practical reason there might have been for it. |
|
That's the basis of the thesis referred to elsewhere: The monument is perfectly laid out to demonstrate a belief in a geocentric Universe, with particular emphasis on the Sun. The second part is that Stonehenge also happens to be laid out to recreate a brilliant grail-like object, rising above the lintels and configured to shine in the general direction of the avenue (edit; this again being a simple recreation of a geocentric universe)
Quote:
| In the back of my mind I question the theory that Stonehenge was meant to be viewed by the plebs from the Avenue; their view would vary with the distance away from the stones. Is it not more likely that all they did was form a crowd in the Avenue and then walk in procession back down the Avenue to the river. |
|
You could be correct: Very interesting idea. This could perhaps be similar to the Catholic symbolism of walking towards the monument to receive communion?
[ This message was edited by: jonm on 2013-01-13 17:01 ]
|
ryszard
Joined:
16-10-2003
Messages: 53
from Canada
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2013-01-13 16:38
I should add that I base my musings on rather incomplete reading about those, and other, days, in Europe and elsewhere, which indicate to me that most of the unquestionably aligned monuments seem to have been aligned to the Summer Solstice. I am unaware of any that were primarily aligned to a Winter Sunset which is implied by the theory of Stonehenge being viewed from the NE. But I stand to be corrected.
Of course in the Northern Hemisphere, a Winter Solstice sunrise and its movement back towards the North would be the optimistic sign showing that the sun was not going to disappear for ever. Hence the various pagan festivals around that time, later replaced by "the birth of Christ" and the "birth" of our New Year.
The travel of a post-Winter Solstice sunset back towards the North would indicate the same, but I am psychologically unable to accept that a sunset is a cause for any other celebration than the occasional "sundowner" when "the sun is over the mainbrace".
|
ryszard
Joined:
16-10-2003
Messages: 53
from Canada
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2013-01-13 15:53
Hi Neil,
I sporadically put in my 2cents'worth here.
In the back of my mind I question the theory that Stonehenge was meant to be viewed by the plebs from the Avenue; their view would vary with the distance away from the stones. Is it not more likely that all they did was form a crowd in the Avenue and then walk in procession back down the Avenue to the river. The day and time for this procession being perhaps decided by the "priests" viewing the Summer Solstice sunrise from inside Stonehenge? The viewers could use a temporary wooden platform to adjust their eye level, the platform being dismantled after the fact to prevent unauthorised plebs from learning the secret... but my imagination is running away with me, so I'll shut up.
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2013-01-12 23:27
Quote:
|
On 2013-01-12 19:15, ryszard wrote:
In this very interesting discussion of orientation/purpose of Stonehenge and other "monuments" it may be worthwhile to consider the difference between "an observatory of" and "a monument to" observed facts/beliefs, a monument which also might incorporate and demonstrate those facts and/or beliefs. Stonehenge seems to me to be a monument to something, whatever other practical reason there might have been for it.
|
|
___________________
Hi Ryszard - pleased to meet you.
As quoted above re: Stonehenge. Yep - in this case you're right on the money. It was essentially both.
Neil
|
ryszard
Joined:
16-10-2003
Messages: 53
from Canada
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2013-01-12 19:15
In this very interesting discussion of orientation/purpose of Stonehenge and other "monuments" it may be worthwhile to consider the difference between "an observatory of" and "a monument to" observed facts/beliefs, a monument which also might incorporate and demonstrate those facts and/or beliefs. Stonehenge seems to me to be a monument to something, whatever other practical reason there might have been for it.
As far as orientation goes, the astronomical orientation of early Christian churches and their altars, and the traditional reasons for these may give food for thought. They show psychological/cult/cultural reasons for being what they are, without being used for astronomical observations. And the reasons varied in the various time periods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_orientem
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11305a.htm
I particularly liked the subtle touch that in England at one time the altar was placed not just in the East, but in the direction that the sun rose on the day dedicated to the Saint after whom the church was named.
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-12-30 03:53
You get an empire on which the sun never sets?
[The Eurasian Plate is moving generally eastwards but is also twisting and the twist means the western side of the plate where we are is moving north east on a bearing of around 060 degrees at 8mm per year. ]
That's 40 km since SH started which is about .3 degrees twist to SE, if things have been consistent for 5000 years.
[Southern and eastern England is sinking, generally estimated at 1 mm per year and London at 2mm due to recent clay deposits].
If the Avon had clay deposits, that is 10 metres sinking compared with 5 metres on a stable horizon.
[..the Chalk Group that underlies much of the south of England, including Salisbury Plain, the Isle of Wight and the South Downs. Between the bands of limestone and chalk are wide clay vales with flood plains.]
Clay outcrops are seen NE of Durrington.
[ This message was edited by: chimera on 2012-12-30 06:59 ]
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 819
from UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-12-29 17:29
Hi Jack
To be honest, all I was trying to do is work out what defines the societal purpose of archaeology as opposed to it being a very advanced hobby.
Quote:
| Because we write, I suggest that we tend to classify people, things and ideas into categories of written words. I suggest further, that we have become 'list-makers', even deifying the lists or categories we make. |
|
That's an expansive claim Jack! Though I'm not sure now, from what George says, that the astro-archaeology people do generate the "align everything" ideas.
Quote:
| If we could only pull ourselves away from our narrow minded little paradigms, everything would become clear. |
|
Not sure Jack, I keep coming back to the question: “What purpose does knowing serve?”
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-12-28 08:43
Horizontal lintels, smooth inner surface. This would not be readily noticed except by a viewer above. The sun? At what distance along the Avenue does winter sun visually sit in the lintel ring?
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-12-28 05:24
Wow ...
Is it warm in here or is it just me?
OK. Is the ditch at Stonehenge round?
I should say not.
Is the Northeast Entrance accurately aligned?
Nope. Not even close.
Is the Southern Entrance actually in the South?
Well I'll be ... it sure ain't.
Are the lintels in the Sarsen Circle level?
Balls-on the money.
How much time between these 2 stages?
500? 600 years?
Too much? Let's be gentle and say 250.
Had the Henge been abandoned for a time somewhere in there? Perhaps more than once?
Probably. There's intermittent tree-root holes in the Ditch and a substantial lull in the interments.
As we now know, they fouled-up the whole East/West thing in the beginning by a degree or two, throwing off what must have been a valiant attempt to 'align' the Aubreys into Cardinal Quadrants.
This in turn screwed up placing the original Sun Stone (S-97), and therefore the Solstice Alignment, or at least where the Sun is perceived to rise behind it.
By this thinking, the Avenue itself is then slightly skewed.
(One lazy error is compounded exponentially!)
Sometime later, in a different generation, and by a people whose world-view had matured, ways were found to correct these errors by rearranging the HeelStone and shifting the Alignment (Slaughter) Stones to a better position.
(Remember - they didn't place these Stones for the Sun to appear Above them, but Beside them.)
Their world - actually and euphemistically - was far larger than it had been in the Olde Days, and was no longer constrained by inaccurate observation methods.
(However, the Avenue was found to be 'good-enough' where it was in any case.)
Now, whether you subscribe to the long building time-line or the short one, the fact remains that the folks who erected the Stones were an awfully lot more careful with the tape-measure and string than them old fellers who laid out the earthworks back in the day.
So then, is Stonehenge aligned to the Solstice?
Er, yah - according to the Original Build.
Was it done with the exactness of the Stone Work?
Not even close.
But children playing in a sand-box grow up.
So, what we're seeing in the present is the construct over a build that was erected on a pre-existing site. (They don't call 'em 'Phases' fer nuthin.)
They got much more accurate as time went on, but couldn't completely erase errors of previous generations.
It might not have been important that they did so, in that the Edifice probably served in a number of capacities by that time anyway, perhaps Instructional, Demonstrative, Ceremonial and 'Mystical'.
This may be a clue that tells us much about what they thought was and wasn't important.
Yup - too bad they screwed it up way back when, but what came later more than made up for any perceptual errors.
So then, hammering away at whether or not Stonehenge is aligned, based on the evidence of some rather embarrassing mistakes, becomes moot when the timeline is invoked.
There's no reasonable doubt that it Is aligned.
I am in hopes that all had a lovely Holiday, and I wish every one of my friends here a Happy New Year!
Best,
Neil
[ This message was edited by: Feanor on 2012-12-28 05:27 ]
|
Lintelman
Joined:
23-08-2012
Messages: 33
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-12-27 15:16
Quote:
|
On 2012-12-23 08:27, jonm wrote:
As far as I can tell, archaeologists have no instruction to establish the purpose of past monuments but do have a brief to investigate what exists, so "previous societies were even more stupid than we are" arguments are not theirs The driver behind finding the monument's purpose seems to be other professions. In the case of astronomy, a branch known as "astro-archaeology" appears to have a funded brief to establish that monuments existed for the purpose of astronomical observation. So I'm not sure it's fair to say that archaeologists have generated the "they were stupid" theories.
|
|
Yes, okay jon, I got a bit harsh with my criticism of Occam's tool. But your paragraph here has got me thinking afresh. I don't think I said that archaeologists generated the stupid predecessor notion, but I'm quite sure that if you spend long enough digging up skeletons from old graves, you will certainly develop a morbid (or shall we say peculiar) outlook on life, the universe etc.. Just as engineers tend, in general, to warm to positivistic arguments. I saw in your other thread on 'what is archaeology for' that you referred to a link between historians and archaeologists.
All this, and your comment about the neat classification of astro-archaeology, is touching upon the Babel syndrome. Here we sit in the 21st century all sitting in our own little cells of knowledge that have emerged out of ... what? Looking at any of the prehistoric monuments, we can only see them in the context of our educational and professional backgrounds, and, even more profoundly, in the context of societies that are founded upon the constraining influence of writing! Because we write, I suggest that we tend to classify people, things and ideas into categories of written words. I suggest further, that we have become 'list-makers', even deifying the lists or categories we make.
I did try to expand on these ideas in Defective Gods, but maybe my style was too obscure and not as well presented as it might have been. While writing it, I came across Colin Renfrew's 'Making of the Modern Mind' and the whole field of Historiography that deals with similar arguments. It does seem to be an area of interest that has eluded the archaeological popular press/ programmers.
If we could only pull ourselves away from our narrow minded little paradigms, everything would become clear.
Jack
| |
|
Main News