Featured Title:
Redhead, the new thriller by Ian Cook 'a compulsive read' |
 |
| A Guide to Stone Circles (New Edition), 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, 114 guests and 5 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 >> Stonehenge Questions
|
 |
| Page 2 of 5 ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 ) |
| Author |
Stonehenge Questions |
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 819
from UK
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 27-04-2012 at 11:15
Hi Neil
The Avenue is an alignment nearer 51/39 rather than 39/51 (though it's only the heelstone at 51/39, the Avenue is nearer 50/40). Try turning page 230 round by 90 degrees, so that North is up, and compare that to the standard wiki-plan:
Standard plan
Any help?
[ This message was edited by: jonm on 2012-04-27 11:19 ]
 Profile
 Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 27-04-2012 at 18:05
Hi Jon,
Yes, I have used this same image for over 3 years, among a number of others.
In reviewing your own pg 230 I see where I went wrong and the solution is actually no big deal.
(You counted your '7' up from 14, instead of from the more widely accepted '1' at the Avenue. Generations will curse you!) lol
I just need to rotate the Aubrey Layer in the original -- not the 'meat & potatoes', so to speak.
The major error in my illustration was the 45/45 thing, now corrected.
One thing I did find puzzling - and George clarified - is that now, no Cardinal passes through a Hole. This means that the significance of 7 is diminished in several theories.
It is only much, much later that the latitudinal sight-lines between Station Stones align with perhaps 8 of the Y&Z holes.
That's for another time though.
This glitch clarified, let's proceed.
Neil
Profile
 Email
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 27-04-2012 at 20:07
OK - it was a little more difficult than mentioned above, but the new rendering on Page One is now posted and I believe it can be used for general reference.
It was the slippage error of 51 degrees from North that mucked up the works - not 39.
Thanks Jon!
George, I am ever in your debt and now see much more clearly what you were attempting to convey.
BTW, my 'center' is derived from an axis beginning slightly to the left of the Heel Stone and drawn through the spaces between 30/1 and 16/15.
Then a measurement dividing the Circle, or 55 feet, is drawn perpendicular from the original line, thus passing through the centers of Stones 8 & 23.
This winds up being 12-odd feet in front of the Altar Stone, along the Prime Axis.
(The distance between the 2 sets of Station Stones is 109 feet and 113 feet respectively if memory serves, so using them presents something of a geometric hurdle, though they do roughly define the diameter of the Circle.)
Profile
Email
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 819
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 28-04-2012 at 07:23
Quote:
| One thing I did find puzzling - and George clarified - is that now, no Cardinal passes through a Hole. This means that the significance of 7 is diminished in several theories. |
|
Thanks Neil, that's a really great observation! It's interesting that the Aubrey holes are consistently out by between one and two degrees.
On the one hand, this isn't a huge tolerance error so perhaps it's reasonable to say that it's not particularly important (especially given that Thuban wouldn't be a proper pole star marker for many hundreds of years at the time the Aubrey holes were put up).
On the other hand, let's say for the sake of argument that there would be a specific reason why the early circle must be rotated slightly out of alignment relative to cardinals: Would you consider that to be important? I thought about this one but came to the conclusion that tolerances were probably a good enough explanation; so any other reason would be of secondary importance. Do you feel strongly otherwise?
Cheers!
Jon
Profile
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 28-04-2012 at 21:09
Quote:
|
On 2012-04-28 07:23, jonm wrote:
Quote:
| One thing I did find puzzling - and George clarified - is that now, no Cardinal passes through a Hole. This means that the significance of 7 is diminished in several theories. |
|
Thanks Neil, that's a really great observation! It's interesting that the Aubrey holes are consistently out by between one and two degrees.
On the one hand, this isn't a huge tolerance error so perhaps it's reasonable to say that it's not particularly important (especially given that Thuban wouldn't be a proper pole star marker for many hundreds of years at the time the Aubrey holes were put up).
On the other hand, let's say for the sake of argument that there would be a specific reason why the early circle must be rotated slightly out of alignment relative to cardinals: Would you consider that to be important? I thought about this one but came to the conclusion that tolerances were probably a good enough explanation; so any other reason would be of secondary importance. Do you feel strongly otherwise?
|
|
_____________
There's couple of related ideas that spring to mind, Jon.
Firstly, if any Cardinal or Alignment passed through only a single Aubrey it would have to be considered significant.
This was my earlier assumption when I thought East passed through 7 and no other.
It is Possible that they fudged-up the Cardinals in those early days, but seems unlikely. They had an awfully long time to mull this stuff over before they ever footed a shovel. Now that George has gone and ruined everything, (lol) the reverse might be true. i.e. that they studiously avoided passing a Cardinal - or any other alignment - through an Aubrey.
This resists being coincidence as there's only 4 Cardinals and 56 Holes. So what's the story on that ...?
Everyone keeps saying: "Thuban" as the then-North Star. It's been XX years since I looked at a star-chart, but if memory serves, Thuban is almost 5 degrees from Polaris. As such it would never work as a Pole Star that near in the past.
I will check obviously, but it occurs more than likely that Polar North was a big blank spot in the sky.
Neil
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 28-04-2012 at 21:49
OK, so it looks like Thuban is 26.41 degrees away from Polaris.
Seems a bit distant to be the North Star 5,000 years ago.
Am I missing something?
Profile
Email
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2657
OFF-Line
| Posted 28-04-2012 at 22:22
Neil , 5,000 years ago Thuban was always within a couple of degrees of due north .
George
Quote:
|
On 2012-04-28 21:49, Feanor wrote:
OK, so it looks like Thuban is 26.41 degrees away from Polaris.
Seems a bit distant to be the North Star 5,000 years ago.
Am I missing something?
|
|
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 819
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 29-04-2012 at 07:53
Hi Neil & George
As George says:
Take a look at this map of the location of the celestial pole over time:
See image on right hand side, bottom of segment on the North Star
This is probably a bit of a red herring, but the number of degrees that Thuban would have been out varies, very approximately, by the absolute value of the equation (N-2850BC) x 48 x Pi / 26000 (where N is the BC date you choose to look at). So, at the time of the construction of the Aubreys, Thuban would have rotated about the Northern Celestial Pole by about one and a half degrees. (equation doesn't work for large date ranges)
But, rewind a bit:
Quote:
| Firstly, if any Cardinal or Alignment passed through only a single Aubrey it would have to be considered significant.... It is Possible that they fudged-up the Cardinals in those early days, but seems unlikely. |
|
If the arrangement and alignment of the Aubreys could be shown to be significant exactly as they stand, would this be important? I thought about this one but came to the conclusion that construction tolerances (fudging up) were probably a good enough explanation; so any other reason would be of secondary importance.
Do you and George feel strongly otherwise?
You guys are absolute stars!
Jon
[ This message was edited by: jonm on 2012-04-29 08:04 ]
Profile
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 29-04-2012 at 16:34
Quote:
|
On 2012-04-29 07:53, jonm wrote:
This is probably a bit of a red herring, but the number of degrees that Thuban would have been out varies, very approximately, by the absolute value of the equation (N-2850BC) x 48 x Pi / 26000 (where N is the BC date you choose to look at). So, at the time of the construction of the Aubreys, Thuban would have rotated about the Northern Celestial Pole by about one and a half degrees. (equation doesn't work for large date ranges)
But, rewind a bit:
Quote:
| Firstly, if any Cardinal or Alignment passed through only a single Aubrey it would have to be considered significant.... It is Possible that they fudged-up the Cardinals in those early days, but seems unlikely. |
|
If the arrangement and alignment of the Aubreys could be shown to be significant exactly as they stand, would this be important? I thought about this one but came to the conclusion that construction tolerances (fudging up) were probably a good enough explanation; so any other reason would be of secondary importance.
Do you and George feel strongly otherwise?
You guys are absolute stars!
Jon
|
|
Well, I'll be sheep-dipped & hawg-tied!
Lol! I used Google Sky for the illustration and calculated the distance from there. I looked no further as I felt 26+ degrees was inordinate.
But the nag in my head said something was wrong, as so many sources have been saying "Thuban".
And here you have simply gone to Wikipedia and found the Circle of Precession straight away ...
Anyway, is there any work done to show a Thuban-North and how the then-Cardinals would have aligned to the Aubrey's?
(I s'pose it wouldn't be that hard to do, now that I mention it ...)
As with all things Stonehenge, there's nothing new under the sun (pun intended), so I'm sure someone's previously done the math.
As I understand your question Jon, it means that they non-aligned the Aubreys based upon where they though North would be in the Future which seems a bit far-fetched, as it's probable they knew nothing of Precession back then.
Let me do some calculating and see if I can come up with a 4,500-year-ago solution as to Aubrey Alignment.
Neil
[ This message was edited by: Feanor on 2012-04-29 16:38 ]
Profile
Email
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 819
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 29-04-2012 at 17:17
Quote:
| Anyway, is there any work done to show a Thuban-North and how the then-Cardinals would have aligned to the Aubrey's? |
|
Hi Neil. No, that's all a red herring (in my opinion). Thuban could have been used as a North Star to find cardinals and would give just the same ground based alignments as using Polaris would today.
Quote:
| As I understand your question Jon, it means that they non-aligned the Aubreys based upon where they though North would be in the Future... |
|
Gosh No! The Aubreys will stay mis-aligned relative to cardinals forever in effective terms.
The question's more about whether or not the mis-alignment needs to be explained as a significant part of any 'Stonehenge' theory: One or two degrees out of alignment (to cardinals) doesn't seem a lot to me, especially given that the Aubreys are early stage stuff. On the other hand, it might be considered to be something that has puzzled archaeologists in the past?
If there's any famous statement about the misalignment relative to cardinals (preferably by a well known archaeologist), I would love to know about it (I could then use the same format as I did for the last one).
Cheers!
Jon
Profile
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 29-04-2012 at 17:41
I discovered precisely what you were saying probably about the same time you posted that last.
North is North at any Age, and has no bearing on the Earth-Based placement of sticks, stones or holes ...
Hee Hee .. how we spend our Sundays, huh?
Our 2 ladies would be out laughing and shopping while the men work with astrolabes and sextants while poring over dusty ancient tomes ...
Hand me those dividers, there's a good fellow ...
Profile
Email
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 819
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 30-04-2012 at 16:48
Hee Hee .. how we spend our Sundays, huh?
I watched Indiana Jones and something about a crystal skull with the kids! My youngest thought that being an archaeologist must be great fun; the oldest isn't so sure he'd want such a dangerous profession.
Incidentally, Souden thinks that the centre of the original monument is South-West of the 'current' centre. Mind you. looking at my CAD imports from Cleal, I can't see why. Looking through the notes on Aubreys I've got, it doesn't seem that any well-known archaeologists have made a big play out of the fact that the Aubreys don't align to cardinals.
On the other hand, Hawkins provides a few very memorable quotes that could be used as an introduction. Hoyle seems a bit circumspect about it all. The guy who seems to go out on a limb to explain it all is North.
Is North famous enough to quote? I know of him, but he doesn't get quoted a lot (on the other hand he must have been on the research list because I've got one of his books).
Jon
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2657
OFF-Line
| Posted 30-04-2012 at 18:13
Not necessarily famous but Thom said " Since the position of ther first Aubrey hole is L =3.7 degrees from geographical north and the mean spacing is k=6.429 degrees ,the north point is very nearly midway between the two holes ,and since there are 8x7 holes then all the cardinal points and the four intermediate points (NE ,SE etc ) lie midway between holes ."
Quote:
|
If there's any famous statement about the misalignment relative to cardinals (preferably by a well known archaeologist), I would love to know about it (I could then use the same format as I did for the last one).
Cheers!
Jon
|
|
Profile
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 30-04-2012 at 21:52
Quote:
|
On 2012-04-30 18:13, tiompan wrote:
Not necessarily famous but Thom said " Since the position of their first Aubrey hole is L =3.7 degrees from geographical north and the mean spacing is k=6.429 degrees ,the north point is very nearly midway between the two holes ,and since there are 8x7 holes then all the cardinal points and the four intermediate points (NE ,SE etc ) lie midway between holes ."
[quote]
If there's any famous statement about the misalignment relative to cardinals (preferably by a well known archaeologist), I would love to know about it (I could then use the same format as I did for the last one).
Cheers!
Jon
|
|
__________________
Fascinating stuff.
George, if I understand the thinking, it is felt that our #49 is their #1?
If so, it does 2 things - at least for me. One is that it proves that North is North no matter when, and the second is that if the space between 48 & 49 is straight-on North then it follows that all the other missed Cardinals must have been intentional.
I cite the fact that, looking at a plan of the Aubreys, they are, while a half-way decent interpretation of a circle, not without flaws.
Some are closer together than others and some fall a bit 'out-of-round'.
I will construct a set of Aubreys using a perfect circle and perfect spacing between them. This will tell us if they are shifted to avoid a Cardinal.
If so, then this might bolster some of the various ideas about their intention.
Best,
Neil
_________________
Profile
Email
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2657
OFF-Line
| Posted 30-04-2012 at 23:19
Sorry Neil , I don't understand what our #49 is their #1 relates to .
George
Quote:
|
On 2012-04-30 21:52, Feanor wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2012-04-30 18:13, tiompan wrote:
Not necessarily famous but Thom said " Since the position of their first Aubrey hole is L =3.7 degrees from geographical north and the mean spacing is k=6.429 degrees ,the north point is very nearly midway between the two holes ,and since there are 8x7 holes then all the cardinal points and the four intermediate points (NE ,SE etc ) lie midway between holes ."
[quote]
If there's any famous statement about the misalignment relative to cardinals (preferably by a well known archaeologist), I would love to know about it (I could then use the same format as I did for the last one).
Cheers!
Jon
|
|
__________________
Fascinating stuff.
George, if I understand the thinking, it is felt that our #49 is their #1?
If so, it does 2 things - at least for me. One is that it proves that North is North no matter when, and the second is that if the space between 48 & 49 is straight-on North then it follows that all the other missed Cardinals must have been intentional.
I cite the fact that, looking at a plan of the Aubreys, they are, while a half-way decent interpretation of a circle, not without flaws.
Some are closer together than others and some fall a bit 'out-of-round'.
I will construct a set of Aubreys using a perfect circle and perfect spacing between them. This will tell us if they are shifted to avoid a Cardinal.
If so, then this might bolster some of the various ideas about their intention.
Best,
Neil
_________________
|
|
Profile
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 01-05-2012 at 00:10
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
_______________________
Here's what I came up with.
It appears as though they could have intentionally hit the NE/SW Cardinals, in addition to Hole 29 with the Solstice Alignment.
Something more might be said for coincidence except, as has been said, all they had to do is rotate them a bit clock-wise to hit or miss them all. (more or less)
Which is apparently what they did, as in reality none of the 8 Cardinals hit anything.
But avoiding them would take even more thought, and is possibly why a few of the Aubreys are slightly out of whack, especially in the SW quad.
Neil
[ This message was edited by: Feanor on 2012-05-01 04:17 ]
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 01-05-2012 at 04:34
[quote]
On 2012-04-30 23:19, tiompan wrote:
Sorry Neil , I don't understand what our #49 is their #1 relates to .
George
[quote]
Sorry George - I missed you in the tumble!
Somewhere in this mass of illustrations, maps, pictures, books and discussion I noticed (or it occurred to me) that we are predisposed to call the Hole to the east of the Solstice Alignment Hole #1.
Now here, in the shuffle to find some understanding, I see that North passes to the west of #49, virtually equidistant to #48.
So it is possible that 49 was considered to be their '1', so to speak?
In light of all this business relating to the Cardinals avoiding the compass-points and so on, I was just wondering out loud if this might be the case.
lol There was probably something more significant that I was attempting to convey, but I've mislaid the thought ...
Neil
Profile
Email
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 819
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 01-05-2012 at 06:19
Not necessarily famous but Thom said "
Thanks George. I think that's a better one than the best I had found by Hawkins. The fact that it's a quote taken from the Journal for the History of Astronomy makes it really special! (though the same text is also in a book by the Thoms)
All the best
Jon
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 819
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 01-05-2012 at 08:57
Quote:
| Which is apparently what they did, as in reality none of the 8 Cardinals hit anything.
But avoiding them would take even more thought, and is possibly why a few of the Aubreys are slightly out of whack, especially in the SW quad. |
|
Hi Neil. I'm not sure what the image is showing.. There are 15 red dots in the South West and 13 in the North East?
If you use an underlay (such as of Cleal) and construct cardinals about the original centre of the monument, the Aubreys form four groups each containing 14 holes.
The Cardinals passing directly between Aubreys only work out to be half-way between Aubreys if you use the centre of the later (phase 3) monument rather than the centre of the original monument.
Unfortunately, image editing software is pretty rubbish for doing this sort of thing. If you've got a laptop, it might be worth installing some CAD software when you're over?
Jon
PS.. the centre of the earthworks / original monument is marginally South West of the 'new' centre (according to Cleal). In Souden's book, the position off-set is magnified but this may just be artistic licence.
[ This message was edited by: jonm on 2012-05-01 09:09 ]
Profile
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 01-05-2012 at 18:22
Jon,
I realized this about the difference in the number of dots per quadrant, yes.
But this is a circle of 360 degrees, divided by 56, arriving at 6.43 degrees of separation, and cannot be interpreted with the landscape behind it, Cardinals notwithstanding.
As shown, they took pains to position the Aubreys to avoid the Cardinals, and this being the purpose of the exercise illustrates that they did indeed fudge with actual placement in order to realize the 14 Holes per quadrant.
The Center of the Circle was arrived at (in this case) by averaging the circumference of the existing Aubreys, and whether or not this corresponds with anyone's interpretation of 'their' circle center is not germane to the illustration.
The layout of the existing Aubreys here is ultimately from Cleal, and their positioning with regard to the embankment has been exhaustively cross-checked.
So, the short-version is, this is how an overlay of a perfectly divided circle appears against actual placement of the Aubreys.
Neil
[ This message was edited by: Feanor on 2012-05-01 18:25 ]
Profile
Email
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