Featured Title:
See Your Book Here |
 |
| MeZolith Graphic Novel |
 |
| 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, 144 guests and 6 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 >> Archaeology Magazine pick their Top 10 Discoveries of 2007
|
 |
| Page 2 of 3 ( 1 | 2 | 3 ) |
| Author |
Archaeology Magazine pick their Top 10 Discoveries of 2007 |
AngieLake
Joined:
12-03-2004
Messages: 550
from Newton Abbot, Devon
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 08-01-2008 at 17:13
On 2008-01-08 09:40, chimera wrote:
It seems on plans that the upright and 16 don't quite line up, but hey they are big stones! (It's off to the left, Og, move it about 6 13/16 inches..?)
Hi Chimera
Have posted a few pics today to illustrate Stone 16's position in relation to Stone 56, but am doubtful about the exact lining-up of their sides. However, something did intrigue me...
Viewed from NW, the facing faces of these stones look flat, [ie: inside the 'special' area we've been talking about] but their other sides (the inner face of Stone 56 towards the centre of Stonehenge, and the outer face of Stone 16 towards the SW) both appear curved.
In other pics you will see the strange unnatural looking 'handle' type 'spine' down the outer face of Stone 16, and also the way the 'pregnant belly' on its outer face only shows up from the SE... especially prominent when it is in line from SE towards NW Station Stone, viewed from SE bank. [See pics later].
Angie 
 Profile
 Reply
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
|  Posted 09-01-2008 at 06:51
So then the shape of the special area would be:
{] [)
{] [)
hope that sends OK. It's meant to look like a cross, between the 4 stones.
The 4 trilithons would echo the cross-shape, between them, twice, and that numeral 4. On the grass the plan of crosses is + + +
My old pc don't do images, but Egyptian hieroglyphs for "beauty" is a cross on a circle, 3 times. Egypt called itself "Beautiful Land" (Ta Mera _ but I think someone got the phonetics wrong, as it seems to be "Ta Nfrw" . "Meri" means "desire").
Anyway, 3 crosses seems strong medicine.
Profile
Reply
|
AngieLake
Joined:
12-03-2004
Messages: 550
from Newton Abbot, Devon
OFF-Line
| Posted 10-01-2008 at 16:06
Thanks Chimera
I'm glad you're commenting regularly on this theory.
I see what you mean about the 'cross', but didn't get why there were three of them on the grass.
I wonder if anyone else has anything to add, now they've seen the pics I put up? (Sorry about the blurry camcorder one of the bluestone, stone 56 and stone 16, by the way!)
Atkinson's theory about the dressing of the stones was interesting, wasn't it?
Angie
Profile
Reply
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 10-01-2008 at 19:19
The other trilithons face each other, in pairs. Between their portals and along the avenue-axis, each pair forms a cross-shape on the earth. (but a bit stretched, so to speak)
Profile
Reply
|
JACKME
Joined:
19-09-2004
Messages: 17
from CUMBRIA
OFF-Line
| Posted 11-01-2008 at 19:58
Quote:
|
On 2008-01-07 23:25, AngieLake wrote:
On 2008-01-04 03:28, chimera wrote:
The V is more visible from winter sunrise, but if the chief honcho knows it's there, is visibility necessary? In fact, obscurity may be important to prevent everyone knowing the religious secrets about solstice. The over-kill power-play of the 5 trilithon horseshoe logically draws on the sun-heelstone-great trilithon manipulation of land and sky. I'm male, we're like that.
The winter stones may be like the wedding register over at one side, but not the centre of the action. I liked the many photos of 16 and upright, but again...is there a straight line along the edge of the upright leading to the straight edge along 16? The V would then be related to the upright, leaving the other 4 to a further meaning.?
Hi chimera
I'll have a look back at my camcorder footage to see if I can tell if those sides line up. Otherwise it'll have to wait until I go up there again. I've a few pics from 2 private access visits which may show this. Or maybe friend 'Jack ME' will know. [He has posted quite a lot of Stonehenge amongst other sites' stones during his research.] Will let you know soon, hopefully!
|
|
Profile
Reply
|
JACKME
Joined:
19-09-2004
Messages: 17
from CUMBRIA
OFF-Line
| Posted 11-01-2008 at 20:09
Quote:
|
On 2008-01-11 19:58, JACKME wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-01-07 23:25, AngieLake wrote:
On 2008-01-04 03:28, chimera wrote:
The V is more visible from winter sunrise, but if the chief honcho knows it's there, is visibility necessary? In fact, obscurity may be important to prevent everyone knowing the religious secrets about solstice. The over-kill power-play of the 5 trilithon horseshoe logically draws on the sun-heelstone-great trilithon manipulation of land and sky. I'm male, we're like that.
The winter stones may be like the wedding register over at one side, but not the centre of the action. I liked the many photos of 16 and upright, but again...is there a straight line along the edge of the upright leading to the straight edge along 16? The V would then be related to the upright, leaving the other 4 to a further meaning.?
Hi chimera
I'll have a look back at my camcorder footage to see if I can tell if those sides line up. Otherwise it'll have to wait until I go up there again. I've a few pics from 2 private access visits which may show this. Or maybe friend 'Jack ME' will know. [He has posted quite a lot of Stonehenge amongst other sites' stones during his research.] Will let you know soon, hopefully!
|
|
JACKME will know. I have had a look at my article No 13, and realise that in 2 years since that was writen I have learnt a lot more, particularly following up Angie's discovery of the Goddess figure. I will re-write it with the survey figures done on 15.7.07, which gives a better idea what what was meant to happen, and followed up by a visit on 18.12.07. JACKME
[/quote]
Profile
Reply
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 20-01-2008 at 09:46
Angie mentioned "standing on the altar" - perhaps I was wrong to object.
quote from [Sconemac]. " The clan organization consisted of the chief, the tanist, the chieftans, the captain, the daoin'-uaisle -- the gentlemen, and the general body of the clan. An Act passed in 1587 "for the quieting and keeping in obedience of the dirorderit and subjectis inhabitants of the Borders, Highland and Isles" containing a roll of "the clans that have Captains, Chiefs and Chieftains on whom they depend (offtimes against the will of their Landlords) as well on the Borders as those of the Highlands" may be considered proof of the existence of the patriarchal system among the inhabitants of the districts named as against the feudal holdings of the landlords, and also gives us three ranks of the clans.
The Chief, who succceeded according to the system of tanistry, dispersed the law in times of peace and led them in war. War was engaged in only with the consent of the whole clan. He governed the clan territory for the benefit of the clan and divided the land in such a way that each member had a portion sufficient for his needs. He "determined all differences and disputes, he protected his followers and he freed the necessitous from their arrears of rent and maintained such who by accidents were fallen to total decay.
**At his induction the Chief took his stand on a stone **
where he took an oath to preserve inviolate all the ancient customs of the people. He was then presented with a sword and a white wand. A bard recounted the Chief's pedigree, enumerated the exploits of his ancestors and exhorted the Chief to emulate their noble example." Ceremonies were observed at the Tanist induction similar to those of a chief except he placed one foot on the stone instead of standing on it. The Tanist was the person next in succession to the Chief according to the laws of tanistry. He was nominated and bore the title of Tanist during the lifetime of the Chief, and his special duty was to hold the clan lands in trust for the clan and their posterity."
The Chieftains were the heads of the houses into which the clan was divided, and the oldest cadet (son) was usually termed the Toiseach and next to the Chief enjoyed the highest dignity in the clan, and the post of honour in time of war. In the absence of the Chief he commanded the whole clan. He was usually a son."
Stonehenge as Oath of Induction site?
Profile
Reply
|
AngieLake
Joined:
12-03-2004
Messages: 550
from Newton Abbot, Devon
OFF-Line
| Posted 20-01-2008 at 23:32
Hi Chimera
I'm glad you brought up that theory and revived this thread.
If you look at Dunadd Fort site page, I'm pretty sure we have a pic of the stone where the chiefs used to put their foot [feet individually?] into a footprint-shaped indent while swearing their oaths. This apparently still happened during the 15th century.
I visited Dunadd in 2002 [?] and dowsed there too, finding a ritual movement that included the 'throne' (on a natural seat of stone), the small natural bowl in the ground for holding water (or anything else) and the long rock with the footprint* and the carving of the boar, and the rune marks. *[In this 'ritual' the chief put one foot in, then the other, while swearing his oath.]
The Scotti tribe came across from Ireland and established a fort on this rock from which their tribe spread across the land, eventually giving their name to 'Scotland'.
The huge outcrop of Dunadd sits on the flat plain at the southern end of Kilmartin Glen, which is full of ancient monuments. An amazing place to visit.
Yes - *could* this have been one of the uses of the Altar Stone if it always lay flat?
Profile
Reply
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 21-01-2008 at 09:35
Scone was amid 4 provinces of the Central District, each having a mortuath as in Ireland. Therefore, the 4 trilithons may have been for each of 4 persons of 4 territories around Stonehenge. The big man had the great trilithon and got all the sunshine on his dark glasses.
Profile
Reply
|
AngieLake
Joined:
12-03-2004
Messages: 550
from Newton Abbot, Devon
OFF-Line
| Posted 21-01-2008 at 17:07
On 2008-01-21 09:35, chimera wrote:
Scone was amid 4 provinces of the Central District, each having a mortuath as in Ireland. Therefore, the 4 trilithons may have been for each of 4 persons of 4 territories around Stonehenge. The big man had the great trilithon and got all the sunshine on his dark glasses.
.....
Ha!ha! .. great idea!
Angie
Profile
Reply
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 28-01-2008 at 08:51
"Kyran is also a Persian name meaning Lord, in Sanskrit Kiran means "ray of light"._ (blog on a baby's name)
As Greek "kyrios" lord became "kirk.church", then "ray of light" is connected with modern faith, and perhaps also with ancient lordship.
Profile
Reply
|
AngieLake
Joined:
12-03-2004
Messages: 550
from Newton Abbot, Devon
OFF-Line
| Posted 29-01-2008 at 00:41
On 2008-01-28 08:51, chimera wrote:
"Kyran is also a Persian name meaning Lord, in Sanskrit Kiran means "ray of light"._ (blog on a baby's name)
As Greek "kyrios" lord became "kirk.church", then "ray of light" is connected with modern faith, and perhaps also with ancient lordship.
Hi Chimera
I don't know about 'Kyran', but I DO know 'Kynan' means 'High and Mighty' because it was the name we chose for my youngest son. [Typically, he's quite short!]
We lived in Cornwall then, and I wanted something derived from the ancient Cornish language. (For instance - Kynance Cove on The Lizard has some pretty impressive cliffs, which are obviously 'high', and definitely 'mighty'.) In the end, to his father's disappointment*, I made it his middle name, giving him 'Adam' for his first name..... meaning 'Man of Red Earth'. That turned out more appropriate, as we moved to South Devon in 1978, where there's loads of the stuff! 
*[When he remarried my Ex called his Newfoundland dog Kynan!]
'Kynan = High and Mighty' would aptly describe the Gt.Trilithon, eh?
Going back to my suggestion that whoever led the Winter Solstice ceremony could have stood on the flat 'altar stone', and your idea about someone pledging 'whatever' while standing on the stone....
I wonder if the altar stone at Stonehenge DOES have a foot-shaped imprint?? I guess the Gt.Trilithon upright and its lintel fell across it in prehistoric times? Burl says 'Pre-Roman' in one of his recent books. So it has never been recorded... or have the stones ever been lifted off it?
Profile
Reply
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 29-01-2008 at 05:38
How embarrassing. A 50-ton crane to lift a stone which was just in a day's work for primitives. No, we'll need the boys from this forum to wander across to raise the brick for a quick squizze. You OK for a cream tea for them?
Profile
Reply
|
karloff
Joined:
20-10-2006
Messages: 604
OFF-Line
| Posted 29-01-2008 at 15:01
Hi Chaps
Angie I'm pretty certain that the altar stone is considered to have originally been upright rather than horizontal. Also, I must ask chaps, you do know that Stonehenge is a re-built structure, it is a product of a series of re-builds in the early 20th century and doesn't represent a "phase". Its more a pastiche of different phases so the Stonehenge we see today never existed in the past.
Profile
Reply
|
AngieLake
Joined:
12-03-2004
Messages: 550
from Newton Abbot, Devon
OFF-Line
| Posted 29-01-2008 at 18:50
On 2008-01-29 15:01, karloff wrote:
Hi Chaps
Angie I'm pretty certain that the altar stone is considered to have originally been upright rather than horizontal. Also, I must ask chaps, you do know that Stonehenge is a re-built structure, it is a product of a series of re-builds in the early 20th century and doesn't represent a "phase". Its more a pastiche of different phases so the Stonehenge we see today never existed in the past.
Hi Karloff
Is that so? I thought it was true to the last phase of building. 
Hi Chimera
Ok, lads.... you bring the brawn, I'll bring the De'm'shure Crame!
Profile
Reply
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 29-01-2008 at 19:38
So what then was the geometry? Heel stone to upright "altar" to G Trilithon to 15-16 stones. What was the shape of light at the final stones?
Profile
Reply
|
karloff
Joined:
20-10-2006
Messages: 604
OFF-Line
| Posted 04-02-2008 at 10:51
Quote:
|
On 2008-01-29 18:50, AngieLake wrote:
On 2008-01-29 15:01, karloff wrote:
Hi Chaps
Angie I'm pretty certain that the altar stone is considered to have originally been upright rather than horizontal. Also, I must ask chaps, you do know that Stonehenge is a re-built structure, it is a product of a series of re-builds in the early 20th century and doesn't represent a "phase". Its more a pastiche of different phases so the Stonehenge we see today never existed in the past.
Hi Karloff
Is that so? I thought it was true to the last phase of building.
Hi Chimera
Ok, lads.... you bring the brawn, I'll bring the De'm'shure Crame!
|
|
Angie
It is reflective of the last phase (well of a sort of tumbled down last phase). I was being a little disingenuous (even overstating the case a bit) but my point was that relying on very subtle evidence is not necasseraly a good idea as there is an element of re-build and "tidying up" on this site.
Profile
Reply
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-02-2008 at 07:22
But would that include chucking the "altar" around? The standing Great upright is original...isn't it..?
Profile
Reply
|
AngieLake
Joined:
12-03-2004
Messages: 550
from Newton Abbot, Devon
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-02-2008 at 12:57
On 2008-02-05 07:22, chimera wrote:
But would that include chucking the "altar" around? The standing Great upright is original...isn't it..?
Hi friends
Just looked in my Aubrey Burl book, "Stonehenge, A New History of the World's Greatest Stone Circle".
Burl says Stone 56 was re-erected from its 60.5 deg tilting angle in 1901 and the other Gt. Trilithon and its lintel fell on top of the altar stone in pre-Roman/ prehistoric? times.
In the previous era (in 'Chapter 9 : The Great Circle c.2450 BC') Burl says that, "Of the bluestones, only the sandstone Altar stone was left, upright near the centre of the new ring, close to the tallest trilithon."
and in Chapter 11: 'The Altar Stone, c.2400 BC onwards', on p. 210, he says:
".. The Altar Stone was not an altar. Nor was it used for human offerings to the gods. Its disposition is a series of contradictions...."
"... Everything is arguable about it.."
"....It is known of course, that the Altar Stone had once been erect. It had acted as a backsight towards the Heel Stone and the midsummer sunrise, standing at the open mouth of the bluestone semi-circle. When, later, the stones were dismantled the Altar Stone, with its distinctive appearance, was probably re-used to be placed in a special position. It was situated in front of the tallest of the pairs of lintelled sarsens, the Great Trilithon, 55-56. Whether it stood or lay flat is its most debatable question."
(He listed eleven scholars who believed it stood, and another fourteen who believed it always to be supine. He points out, too, that circles with internal standing stones are rare in the south of England.)
Burl continues:
"Writing in 1924, E.H.Stone was sure that the stone had never stood:
..........(quoting Stone)......'[the Altar Stone] would have had an obvious use as a dais or platform. It should be added that, from the centre of Stonehenge, an upright Altar Stone 12ft (3.7m) high would have hidden the 8ft (2.3m) tall bluestone 67 behind it, utterly spoiling the visual effect of the carefully graded heights of the bluestone horseshoe of which 67 was the apex.' "
Burl later remarks: "It should also be recalled that, although far from conclusive, Stukeley had burrowed under the Altar Stone in search of its hole but found only 'perfect solid chalk, that had never been stir'd.' "
also:
... "The tons of [Stone] 55 had already fallen almost directly forward, breaking in two and hitting the Altar Stone which, if standing, would have been forced forward towards the centre of the circle. It could never have been edged so far to its left that it fell so nearly at right-angles across the axis, as it does today. Nor could it have been shifted after the catastrophe. Logic demands that it was prone, lying flat perhaps as a symbolic 'doorway' or 'entrance', with bluestone 67 rising in front of it, its top forming the bottom of a 'window' through the gap between the trilithon where the midwinter setting sun would shine across the circle between the sarsens at the entrance and up to the Heel Stone and its companion.
Speculation becomes near-reality by the knowledge that there were supine stones in similar cross-axial situations in two other ritual monuments in Wessex - the Sanctuary near Avebury and Woodhenge near Stonehenge. By coincidence, both were excavated by Maud Cunnington."
"......."
"The probable explanation for the eccentric position of the Altar Stone was that, by design, it separated a third of the circle from the rest of Stonehenge. To reach that sanctum was akin to passing through a cathedral to reach the Lady Chapel and its mysteries. The Altar Stone formed a 'cell' that was made special by the grandeur of its high bluestones and towering trilithons, by its chosen association with the midwinter sunset, and by the presence of the only art inside Stonehenge."
(He was referring here to the Trilithons to right and left of the Altar Stone, when facing SW... the dagger and axes on Stone 53 and the rectangular figurine and haft of an axe on Stone 57.)
.... "The carvings, however, could be seen head-high .... above the bluestones, placed like Stone 53, where they would be visible from the Altar Stone."
He emphasises how the carvings would have shown up in the flickering light of flaming torches during certain ceremonies, esp. in darker winter days. We don't get the same effect today.
Surely, then, whilst looking ahead, through the legs of the Great Trilithon, the 'V' mark carving on Stone 16 would be visible and an important focal part of this set-up??? Maybe there was also a 'male' symbol carved on its partner, Stone 15??
NB: I've copied a lot of Burl's book to illustrate my point, but please respect the copyright, and DO read the book... it is a very detailed report of this famous archaeologist's years of study.
Profile
Reply
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-02-2008 at 04:22
Is the art visible more readily by a person who stands on that supine "altar"? Could it be "made for him" at that focus point? Has anyone else stated that the chalk underneath is undisturbed?
Profile
Reply
| |
| Go to Page: 1 | 2 | 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
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