On 2012-08-27 19:53, megalith6 wrote:
Hi,

Recently picked up Ronald Hutton's 'Stations of the Sun' (1996) and was amazed to read the following:

Apart from several instances, none "of the other fifty-odd cursuses known in Britain has obvious solar alignments, nor [excluding Newgrange and Maes Howe] do any of the other passage graves, which number over a hundred". page 4.

Does this include for example sites like Bryn Celli Ddu in Wales I wonder?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/5083436.stm

Mr Hutton then informs me that apart from Long Meg and her Daughters "none of the other stone rings of the Cumbrian region has apparent solar connections" (page 5). But what about Castlerigg?

http://www.megalithic.co.uk/mm/eng/criggp.gif

http://www.megalithic.co.uk/mm/eng/crigg.htm

Then comes a mega "the vast majority of prehistoric monuments in these islands do not relate to ... the cardinal points of the sun", (page 5).

Am I the only person in the world who finds that statement slightly troubling? Aubrey Burl who Hutton seems to reference in defence of his thesis identifies more than 20 actual or possible solar alignments in his 'Guide to Stone Circles' (1995). So is Burl equally in the wrong? Or is Hutton's point that there are more megalithic monuments than documented solar alignments (some will be lunar anyway, others too far gone to learn from). If so is this an empty argument? If the earthworks & megalithic builders weren't interested in aligning their monuments with the sun, or the moon or the stars, then there wouldn't be any alignments. But the fact - and it is a fact - that there are megalithic solar alignments causes me to wonder what Mr Hutton's argument actually is?

Comments please.

Thanks,

Ric

On 2012-08-27 20:59, Runemage wrote:
Tee hee, George beat me to it

On 2012-08-27 22:13, megalith6 wrote:
Thanks George & Rune,

But I think some moderns are being too severe with the megalith builders who were labouring away 5,000 years ago with nothing to assist them but stone and perishable tools, not even a compass or a protractor, how did they do it? Even Burl admits they may have got it wrong now and then so if we are looking for scientifically exact alignments in every case, well you're unlikely to find them. I would argue that alignments are more 'guides lines' to astronomical phenomena not exact sight lines. The North Cove at Avebury is an excellent example of what I mean, if Terence Meaden got it right - and I believe he did - the Cove had its gnomon Stone 'F' and a rough and ready arrangement it was too, but it did the job, it cast a shadow into the Cove over the midsummer period, until a farmer blew the stone to pieces over a century ago.

None of these alignments would be working on the solstice then not working the day afterwards due to then as now the vagueries of the weather, you might have to wait a week beyond a solar date before the sun actually appeared, and so I guess they patiently waited.

But I sure am glad to find that I am not the only person who finds Hutton's pronouncements on megalithic culture worth commenting on, thanks again. I may update this thread if I come across anything else which might add to it

Ric

On 2012-08-27 19:53, megalith6 wrote:
... Then comes a mega "the vast majority of prehistoric monuments in these islands do not relate to ... the cardinal points of the sun", (page 5).
Am I the only person in the world who finds that statement slightly troubling? Aubrey Burl who Hutton seems to reference in defence of his thesis identifies more than 20 actual or possible solar alignments in his 'Guide to Stone Circles' (1995). So is Burl equally in the wrong? Or is Hutton's point that there are more megalithic monuments than documented solar alignments (some will be lunar anyway, others too far gone to learn from). If so is this an empty argument? If the earthworks & megalithic builders weren't interested in aligning their monuments with the sun, or the moon or the stars, then there wouldn't be any alignments. But the fact - and it is a fact - that there are megalithic solar alignments causes me to wonder what Mr Hutton's argument actually is?
Ric

Aligning monuments is relatively easy. All you need is 2 sticks and a good length of rope while the Medicine Man or whoever tells you where to stick 'em in the ground.

On 2012-08-28 19:10, cropredy wrote:
Hope everyone is fine and healthy, I do read this site, but I don't want to be embroiled in the constant ridicule and disbelief of dowsing so entrenched in many stoneheads.
So it's hello and goodbye again.
cropredy

On 2012-08-29 00:14, megalith6 wrote:
Thanks to all,

Yes those pesky northward cursus monuments but don't forget all those awkward north facing cairns as well! But I doubt that they oriented these monuments like this for no reason. The megalith builders could be as phenomenal as the pyramid builders in their accuracy but I am sure some of the megalithic monuments were the work of small communities who didn't have the precision of the Stonehenge builders. Be that as it may be, these monuments are 5000 years old, have been subject to drought, flood, frost, ferocious storms, rare earthquakes and the depredations of later cultures - sadly still very much the case - I think all this needs to be taken on board. Hutton appears to pour cold water over the Cairn 'T' equinoctial alignment in Ireland because he says the monument was renovated in the first half of the 20th century. I think that is a little unfair. The light box at Newgrange was buried for centuries due to a landslide, by Mr Hutton's reckoning the midwinter sun streaming into that monument ought to be cautioned if not stood in the dock. I mean yes, let's be rigorous and objective but let us not for goodness sake throw the baby out with the bath water!

Yes I agree with the magic circle reading for stone circles and similar monuments with banks and berms, I think religion and science walked hand-in-hand in prehistory. No-one can discount dowsing because the biggest critic of dowsing would be its greatest adherent were they expiring from thirst in the middle of the desert and a dowser showed up. I believe dowsing works when it needs to. Place it under laboratory conditions and it may just sit and smile at you

Bests,

Ric

Jon , it's the old story of checking these claims if someone doesn't do it ,it gets repeated then becomes reified .

On 2012-08-29 11:47, jonm wrote:

Quote:

Jon , it's the old story of checking these claims if someone doesn't do it ,it gets repeated then becomes reified .

It seems so George, but voices of dissent don't count for a lot if those running the show chose to endorse the claims by their silence.

For example:

UN recognises astronomical heritage sites

This firmly establishes that the viewpoint is the opinion of the majority of Stonehenge experts. The UN has endorsed it without dissent from those who are non-astro-archaeologists.

I dion't ahve a problem with that Jon , although they do persisit on using "observatory " . Btw Amanda Chadburn wrote the earlier page .

On 2012-08-29 14:41, jonm wrote:

Quote:

I dion't ahve a problem with that Jon , although they do persisit on using "observatory " . Btw Amanda Chadburn wrote the earlier page .

Agreed, it's very useful to see the community's colours nailed to the mast.

Who's Amanda Chadburn?

On 2012-08-29 15:19, jonm wrote:
Thanks George, that's very useful.

Do you mean this piece was written by Amanda Chadburn:

http://www2.astronomicalheritage.net/index.php/show-entity?identity=000006&idsubentity=1

If so, how can you tell? I couldn't get the author's name from the page.