Featured Title:
Cave Of Forgotten Dreams on DVD |
 |
| Roads and Trackways of North Wales |
 |
| 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, 69 guests and 2 members online.
You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here |
| |
Moderated by : Andy B , TimPrevett , coldrum , Klingon , MickM , TheCaptain , bat400 , davidmorgan , Runemage , SolarMegalith , sem
The Megalithic Portal and Megalith Map : Index >>
Stones Forum >> Equinox
|
 |
| Page 5 of 5 ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 ) |
| Author |
Equinox |
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2653
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 13-11-2007 at 21:51
Quote:
|
On 2007-11-11 21:38, JACKME wrote:
Why would you think any were orientated to the North?
Too often the orientation of monuments is interpreted astroarchaeologically when there are many other possible explanations like referencing landscape features rivers , ridges etc .
The monument being examined may have based it's orientation on an underlying earlier monument like a house (not uncommon ) whose original choice of orientation was purely utilitarian .
Those that are orientated away from the northern quarter - is there any preferred direction?
It depends on the region but S.W does crop up quite a bit more than most .
Sorry to say that I don't quite grab the significance of the 'line' between centre of Castlerigg to Ring of Brodgar.
No significance really , although some might consider it so , the "portal" at Castlerrigg is oriented to the N and the Brodgar is quite close to that "line " .
|
|
 Profile
 Reply
|
JACKME
Joined:
19-09-2004
Messages: 17
from CUMBRIA
OFF-Line
| Posted 14-11-2007 at 17:24
Quote:
|
On 2007-11-11 23:01, ragnarok wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-11-11 21:38, JACKME wrote:
Go and watch how the sunrises move throughout the year and you will see that all days away from the solstices areabout 2 days out, spring and autumn due to the earth axis being on a tilt JACKME
|
|
Hi JACKME
Do you mean the difference in number of days between the two halves of the year?
(I've changed posting as I thought following might be a better explanation)
The time period between the Equinoxes are not the same length because the Earth's orbit is elliptical & the speed of the Earth in its orbit is not constant because it moves quicker when closest to the Sun - which is in January (present times). It takes a shorter time to move from the Autumn Equinox to the Spring Equinox (178/9 days) than from the Spring Equinox to the Autumn Equinox (186/7 days).
However in the Early Bronze Age the Earth was closest to the Sun in November - due to Earth having a different orientation in space because the major axis of the Earth's orbit rotates slowly. This means that the period between the Equinoxes was less - Autumn to Spring about 180/1 days, Spring to Autumn about 184/5 days.
But Day/Night is equal in length clock-time wise about 2 days before the Spring Equinox & about 2 days after the Autumn Equinox. Some say this is due to refraction of light.
[ This message was edited by: ragnarok on 2007-11-13 12:57 ]
[/quote] I confirm about the 2 day difference between spring and autumn positions of the calendar markers. Refraction of light varies with the weather affecting the humidity, like in a fog. This factor was missed out in my school lessons, perhaps the formular is better today. The variation is quite noticeable when the weather deteriorates while using a theodolite over long distances. on one occasion about 04 minutes of a degree in elevation, or perhaps I had kicked a leg. JACKME.
Profile
Reply
|
ragnarok
Joined:
26-06-2006
Messages: 429
OFF-Line
| Posted 14-11-2007 at 18:02
Quote:
|
On 2007-11-14 17:24, JACKME wrote:
I confirm about the 2 day difference between spring and autumn positions of the calendar markers. Refraction of light varies with the weather affecting the humidity, like in a fog. This factor was missed out in my school lessons, perhaps the formular is better today. The variation is quite noticeable when the weather deteriorates while using a theodolite over long distances. on one occasion about 04 minutes of a degree in elevation, or perhaps I had kicked a leg. JACKME.
|
|
It's also of note that todays, sightline, Equinoxes are not at declination 0deg 0mins but at a small positive value. Your figure of 0.4 makes sense insofar as that the Sun changes it's declination by about 0.4deg per day in spring & autumn.
Profile
Reply
|
ragnarok
Joined:
26-06-2006
Messages: 429
OFF-Line
| Posted 14-11-2007 at 18:09
Quote:
|
On 2007-11-13 21:51, tiompan wrote:
The monument being examined may have based it's orientation on an underlying earlier monument like a house (not uncommon ) whose original choice of orientation was purely utilitarian .
|
|
That's something I'm totally unaware (ignorant!) of. I'd be interested in some examples please.
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2653
OFF-Line
| Posted 14-11-2007 at 19:59
Quote:
|
On 2007-11-14 18:09, ragnarok wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-11-13 21:51, tiompan wrote:
The monument being examined may have based it's orientation on an underlying earlier monument like a house (not uncommon ) whose original choice of orientation was purely utilitarian .
|
|
That's something I'm totally unaware (ignorant!) of. I'd be interested in some examples please.
[/quote]
The best examples are in Europe like Barkaer in Jutland where a long mound follows the plan of an earlier house .In the UK Gwernvale chambered cairn is built over a house , smaller examples are found at Ascott- Under -Wychwood and Hazleton North . At Bharpa Carinish a chambered cairn and a house 30 meters away share the same orientation .At Ballyglass two court cairns overlie earlier houses maintaining the orientation . Street House long cairn overlies three earlier structures , a square enclosure , ,a "mortuary house & timber forecourt .
Profile
Reply
|
ragnarok
Joined:
26-06-2006
Messages: 429
OFF-Line
| Posted 15-11-2007 at 15:52
Quote:
|
On 2007-11-14 19:59, tiompan wrote:
The best examples are in Europe like Barkaer in Jutland where a long mound follows the plan of an earlier house .In the UK Gwernvale chambered cairn is built over a house , smaller examples are found at Ascott- Under -Wychwood and Hazleton North . At Bharpa Carinish a chambered cairn and a house 30 meters away share the same orientation .At Ballyglass two court cairns overlie earlier houses maintaining the orientation . Street House long cairn overlies three earlier structures , a square enclosure , ,a "mortuary house & timber forecourt .
|
|
Thanks for that tiompan, any ideas on why they did that?
Not got any time to investigate stuff at the mo so perhaps you might know of any classic stone circles erected around earlier dwellings?
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2653
OFF-Line
| Posted 15-11-2007 at 17:15
Quote:
|
On 2007-11-15 15:52, ragnarok wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-11-14 19:59, tiompan wrote:
The best examples are in Europe like Barkaer in Jutland where a long mound follows the plan of an earlier house .In the UK Gwernvale chambered cairn is built over a house , smaller examples are found at Ascott- Under -Wychwood and Hazleton North . At Bharpa Carinish a chambered cairn and a house 30 meters away share the same orientation .At Ballyglass two court cairns overlie earlier houses maintaining the orientation . Street House long cairn overlies three earlier structures , a square enclosure , ,a "mortuary house & timber forecourt .
|
|
Thanks for that tiompan, any ideas on why they did that?
Not got any time to investigate stuff at the mo so perhaps you might know of any classic stone circles erected around earlier dwellings?
[/quote]
It isn't a prerequisite for the dead the to be kept in monuments but Levi -Strauss suggested that there are "house societies " and barrows , long cairns etc can be seen as "houses for the dead " . I can't think of a stone circle overlying an earlier house off hand , but when you consider the number of stone circles that have been excavated i.e. not too many there is plenty of room (excuse pun ) for such .
Profile
Reply
|
JACKME
Joined:
19-09-2004
Messages: 17
from CUMBRIA
OFF-Line
| Posted 19-11-2007 at 19:54
Quote:
|
On 2007-10-26 15:57, brigantia wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-10-26 14:04, ragnarok wrote:
Much of Thom's work is controversial & disputed. |
|
Too true. His data was based upon the erroneous dating systems given by the archaeologists. His mathematics, astronomy and ground-plans are excellent and very accurate. Twas the archaeological data that was wrong. Hence, the archaeoastronomy turned out to be incorrect.
Quote:
| I also understand that various alignments at sites have now either been downgraded in accuracy or even dismissed altogether. Believe Clive Ruggles has done some work on this?
|
|
Ruggles' main works are , Astronomy in Prehistoric Britain & Ireland and editor of Records in Stone (papers in honour of Thom). Many of the archaeologically incorrect date equations are, obviously, dealt a blow; but there are still a number of alignments which are authentic. Certainly a number of leading archaeologists think so.
[/quote] Sorry I missed this one. I find Thom's surveying marvellous, but unfortunately he did not look at the Sun's rises and sets at the same time, and so missed the purpose of many stones. He did not realise that they were erecting stones marking the invisible rises and sets ie those behind the hills on a flat plain. More details will eventually be published. JACKME
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2653
OFF-Line
| Posted 20-11-2007 at 18:20
Quote:
|
On 2007-11-19 19:54, JACKME wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-10-26 15:57, brigantia wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-10-26 14:04, ragnarok wrote:
Much of Thom's work is controversial & disputed. |
|
Too true. His data was based upon the erroneous dating systems given by the archaeologists. His mathematics, astronomy and ground-plans are excellent and very accurate. Twas the archaeological data that was wrong. Hence, the archaeoastronomy turned out to be incorrect.
Quote:
| I also understand that various alignments at sites have now either been downgraded in accuracy or even dismissed altogether. Believe Clive Ruggles has done some work on this?
|
|
Ruggles' main works are , Astronomy in Prehistoric Britain & Ireland and editor of Records in Stone (papers in honour of Thom). Many of the archaeologically incorrect date equations are, obviously, dealt a blow; but there are still a number of alignments which are authentic. Certainly a number of leading archaeologists think so.
[/quote] Sorry I missed this one. I find Thom's surveying marvellous, but unfortunately he did not look at the Sun's rises and sets at the same time, and so missed the purpose of many stones. He did not realise that they were erecting stones marking the invisible rises and sets ie those behind the hills on a flat plain. More details will eventually be published. JACKME
[/quote]
Thom did make mistakes that were not due to dating . The flat plain horizon , zero altitude type of orientation was not something that Thom would have considered and even today most archaeoastronomers wouldn't either , there are plenty of examples but proving the intentionality of them would be almost impossible .
Profile
Reply
|
JACKME
Joined:
19-09-2004
Messages: 17
from CUMBRIA
OFF-Line
| Posted 20-11-2007 at 21:22
Quote:
|
On 2007-11-20 18:20, tiompan wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-11-19 19:54, JACKME wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-10-26 15:57, brigantia wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-10-26 14:04, ragnarok wrote:
Much of Thom's work is controversial & disputed. |
|
Too true. His data was based upon the erroneous dating systems given by the archaeologists. His mathematics, astronomy and ground-plans are excellent and very accurate. Twas the archaeological data that was wrong. Hence, the archaeoastronomy turned out to be incorrect.
Quote:
| I also understand that various alignments at sites have now either been downgraded in accuracy or even dismissed altogether. Believe Clive Ruggles has done some work on this?
|
|
Ruggles' main works are , Astronomy in Prehistoric Britain & Ireland and editor of Records in Stone (papers in honour of Thom). Many of the archaeologically incorrect date equations are, obviously, dealt a blow; but there are still a number of alignments which are authentic. Certainly a number of leading archaeologists think so.
[/quote] Sorry I missed this one. I find Thom's surveying marvellous, but unfortunately he did not look at the Sun's rises and sets at the same time, and so missed the purpose of many stones. He did not realise that they were erecting stones marking the invisible rises and sets ie those behind the hills on a flat plain. More details will eventually be published. JACKME
[/quote]
Thom did make mistakes that were not due to dating . The flat plain horizon , zero altitude type of orientation was not something that Thom would have considered and even today most archaeoastronomers wouldn't either , there are plenty of examples but proving the intentionality of them would be almost impossible .
[/quote]I have found many sites both for the Visible ( where the Sun or Moon rises or sets can be seen,) and the invisible, marked on the ground at 14-14.1 km from the main circles of Swinside and Stonehenge. Look on the map at these distances and you will be surprised what you see. (Prepublication data) For MR contact direct. JACKME.
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2653
OFF-Line
| Posted 20-11-2007 at 22:06
Quote:
|
On 2007-11-20 21:22, JACKME wrote:
|
|
I have found many sites both for the Visible ( where the Sun or Moon rises or sets can be seen,) and the invisible, marked on the ground at 14-14.1 km from the main circles of Swinside and Stonehenge. Look on the map at these distances and you will be surprised what you see. (Prepublication data) For MR contact direct. JACKME.
[/quote]
Yes , they are quite common but whether they are meaningful is the question . Of the ones that I am aware of , circa 14Km and it's multiples is no more frequent than others .
Profile
Reply
|
JACKME
Joined:
19-09-2004
Messages: 17
from CUMBRIA
OFF-Line
| Posted 22-11-2007 at 20:55
Quote:
|
On 2007-11-20 22:06, tiompan wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-11-20 21:22, JACKME wrote:
|
|
I have found many sites both for the Visible ( where the Sun or Moon rises or sets can be seen,) and the invisible, marked on the ground at 14-14.1 km from the main circles of Swinside and Stonehenge. Look on the map at these distances and you will be surprised what you see. (Prepublication data) For MR contact direct. JACKME.
[/quote]
Yes , they are quite common but whether they are meaningful is the question . Of the ones that I am aware of , circa 14Km and it's multiples is no more frequent than others .
[/quote] The sites I am talking about are meaningful being extensions of the more important Sun and Moon rises and sets both the visible and the invisible. How and why did they do it? JACKME
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2653
OFF-Line
| Posted 22-11-2007 at 21:57
Quote:
|
On 2007-11-22 20:55, JACKME wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-11-20 22:06, tiompan wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-11-20 21:22, JACKME wrote:
|
|
I have found many sites both for the Visible ( where the Sun or Moon rises or sets can be seen,) and the invisible, marked on the ground at 14-14.1 km from the main circles of Swinside and Stonehenge. Look on the map at these distances and you will be surprised what you see. (Prepublication data) For MR contact direct. JACKME.
[/quote]
Yes , they are quite common but whether they are meaningful is the question . Of the ones that I am aware of , circa 14Km and it's multiples is no more frequent than others .
[/quote] The sites I am talking about are meaningful being extensions of the more important Sun and Moon rises and sets both the visible and the invisible. How and why did they do it? JACKME
[/quote]
I was meaning the orientation from site to site being meaningful not the sites themselves . If you are thinking talking about an azimuth from one monument to another unsighted monument which coincides with the azimuth of a an important astro event like a solstice , then I doubt that it would be readily accepted by the archaeoastronomical community . Proving them to be intentional would be very difficult , personally I believe there is a possibility that they may be epiphenomenal , a by product .
Profile
Reply
|
JACKME
Joined:
19-09-2004
Messages: 17
from CUMBRIA
OFF-Line
| Posted 23-11-2007 at 19:35
Quote:
|
On 2007-11-22 21:57, tiompan wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-11-22 20:55, JACKME wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-11-20 22:06, tiompan wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-11-20 21:22, JACKME wrote:
|
|
I have found many sites both for the Visible ( where the Sun or Moon rises or sets can be seen,) and the invisible, marked on the ground at 14-14.1 km from the main circles of Swinside and Stonehenge. Look on the map at these distances and you will be surprised what you see. (Prepublication data) For MR contact direct. JACKME.
[/quote]
Yes , they are quite common but whether they are meaningful is the question . Of the ones that I am aware of , circa 14Km and it's multiples is no more frequent than others .
[/quote] The sites I am talking about are meaningful being extensions of the more important Sun and Moon rises and sets both the visible and the invisible. How and why did they do it? JACKME
[/quote]
I was meaning the orientation from site to site being meaningful not the sites themselves . If you are thinking talking about an azimuth from one monument to another unsighted monument which coincides with the azimuth of a an important astro event like a solstice , then I doubt that it would be readily accepted by the archaeoastronomical community . Proving them to be intentional would be very difficult , personally I believe there is a possibility that they may be epiphenomenal , a by product .
[/quote] The sites themselves are often of a minor nature, but their orienation and distance is too frequent to be dismissed as chance. JACKME
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2653
OFF-Line
| Posted 23-11-2007 at 19:58
[/quote] The sites themselves are often of a minor nature, but their orienation and distance is too frequent to be dismissed as chance. JACKME
[/quote]
Could you be more specific ?
Profile
Reply
|
JACKME
Joined:
19-09-2004
Messages: 17
from CUMBRIA
OFF-Line
| Posted 25-11-2007 at 10:02
Quote:
|
On 2007-11-23 19:58, tiompan wrote:
|
|
The sites themselves are often of a minor nature, but their orienation and distance is too frequent to be dismissed as chance. JACKME
[/quote]
Could you be more specific ?
[/quote]I will post a list for both Swinside and Stonehenge shortly. I failed to write down the MR of one site this week, also a bit pushed at the moment altering a lecture for next week. JACKME
Profile
Reply
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 7001
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 25-11-2007 at 11:37
Can I give some help on using the 'reply with quote' feature in the forum.
For this to work properly you need to have a (quote) tag at the beginning of the quote and (/quote) at the end of the quote. (I'm using round brackets instead of square brackets [ ] so you can see the tags.
Then type your reply underneath. That way you get proper quotes.
Cheers
[ This message was edited by: Andy B on 2007-11-25 11:38 ]
Profile
 Email
Reply
|
ragnarok
Joined:
26-06-2006
Messages: 429
OFF-Line
| Posted 27-11-2007 at 18:54
Quote:
|
On 2007-11-25 10:02, JACKME wrote:
I will post a list for both Swinside and Stonehenge shortly. I failed to write down the MR of one site this week, also a bit pushed at the moment altering a lecture for next week. JACKME
|
|
Moon/Sun rise/set for when?
Does this rather selected 14 -14.1 km mean anything across the board?
[ This message was edited by: ragnarok on 2007-11-27 18:58 ]
Profile
Reply
|
JACKME
Joined:
19-09-2004
Messages: 17
from CUMBRIA
OFF-Line
| Posted 13-12-2007 at 20:26
Quote:
|
On 2007-11-27 18:54, ragnarok wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-11-25 10:02, JACKME wrote:
I will post a list for both Swinside and Stonehenge shortly. I failed to write down the MR of one site this week, also a bit pushed at the moment altering a lecture for next week. JACKME
[/Moon/Sun rise/set for when?
Does this rather selected 14 -14.1 km mean anything across the board? ]
By major Sun rises and sets I mean at the Solstices and Equinox at both the First Gleam and sometimes at Full Orb plus, that is when the Sun appears to have broken contact with the Earth. At Swinside with its higher sky line elevation in places they also marked the invisible with stones in the circle. Stonehenge with its near level sky line I have found no evidence of the invisible yet. The Moon at Swinside and Castlerigg mark both the Visible and the invisible with stones in the circle, skyline markers.
Swinside and Stonehenge have several places where they have marked the Standstills out at the 14-14.1kms. Jack[Moon/Sun rise/set for when?
Does this rather selected 14 -14.1 km mean anything across the board? ]
[ This message was edited by: ragnarok on 2007-11-27 18:58 ]
|
|
Profile
Reply
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 15-12-2007 at 21:04
A thought on the q. about N. As a complement to the gyrating moon and sun, the pole is fixed, visible and constantly present in the sinister darkness. It suggests immortality, security and is the only definite cardinal direction (apart from Australia's Aboriginal pole). It is lineal in contrast to the sun's semi-circle, and in winter these suggest the cross shape and perhaps sexual fertility. N is good for you.
Profile
Reply
| |
| Go to Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
IMPORTANT NOTES: This site uses COOKIES. Please do not use this web site if you do not agree to our Terms and Conditions of use.
If you plan to visit ancient sites in person, please make sure you follow our Charter.
Articles, photographs and comments are the property of their respective authors or contributors, please contact them for permission to reproduce. Site design ©1997-2012 Andy Burnham.
|
Main News