Featured Title:
Bending the Boyne: a Novel of Ancient Ireland |
 |
| London's Ley Lines, Pathways of enlightenment |
 |
| 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, 112 guests and 1 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 3 of 5 ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 ) |
| Author |
Stonehenge Questions |
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 826
from UK
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 01-05-2012 at 20:29
Hi Neil
Quote:
| 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. |
|
Maybe, but Cleal et al argue that the centre of the first monument was based on the ditch & bank (and maybe Aubreys, I can't remember): If you move the centre of the circle marginally (about two to three feet south west from memory), then the Aubreys do match a non-cardinal circle (give or take the sort of construction tolerances that might be reasonable for the age). The interesting hole is AH53, which doesn't fit the pattern.
What you've done must be similar in principle? (because, in order for a circle to have 15 of its equally spaced holes in the south west and 13 in the north east, its overall centre must have moved to the south west)
 Profile
 Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 319
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 02-05-2012 at 05:56
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
_____________________
Here's a corrected version.
(You were right, Jon!) You'll see my original incorrect center as a little red dot.
The question for me I guess is Why did they not align them this way?
Seems to me it would have been easier and more elegant.
But instead, apart from a few close calls, they studiously avoided all the Holes.
Weird.
As you can see from several of my assumptions and consequent errors that there's always something to learn about this place!
Neil
Profile
 Email
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 826
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 02-05-2012 at 09:02
Quote:
| The question for me I guess is Why did they not align them this way?
Seems to me it would have been easier and more elegant.
But instead, apart from a few close calls, they studiously avoided all the Holes.
Weird. |
|
Perhaps it was meant to be like that?
In the diagram you've got above, 56 is 55 and 7 is 6 (the Aubrey hole passing through the sunrise line is 56 and the hole nearest the Eastern Cardinal is 6).
If you take your cardinals and rotate them anti-clockwise by about 2.3-2.5 degrees, you'll find that the cardinals now pass through the boundaries of the holes.
Next step is to make a radial for each Aubrey hole at an angular offset of 6.42857 degrees so that there's one radial for each of the 56 Aubrey holes: You'll find that every sub-radial line also passes through the boundary of each Aubrey hole (if you have the same centre as Cleal). Trouble is, this only works if you have an exact scan from Cleal: I doubt it'll work on your drawing as some of the Aubrey holes seem, by eye, to be slightly different locations and sizes. Typically there's a tolerance of about 0.5 degrees between hole centres based on a radial pattern.
The exceptions are 55, 54 and, especially, 53.
I think this could make a good second paper as it leads very nicely into the third one (which was planned to be the second). Trouble is, I can only get about 800 words out of it so may have to puff it up a bit. But haven't entirely convinced myself that it's a significant enough issue to warrant a paper.
Profile
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 319
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 02-05-2012 at 15:45
It's possible I'm spending a bit too much time with this ...
In any case, they did seem to be aware of the Cardinals v Aubreys.
I guess it's about time to bite-the-bullet and order Cleal.
Profile
Email
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2707
OFF-Line
| Posted 02-05-2012 at 22:50
If the cardinals went through one or any number of AH's it would be considered salient , similarly if they avoid them but why should it even be a consideration ?
George
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 826
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 03-05-2012 at 06:22
Quote:
| I guess it's about time to bite-the-bullet and order Cleal. |
|
It's a big bullet to bite. The way to get it is probably via amazon,co.uk and then choose a sub-seller with a low dispatch cost to the USA. Still costs more than $100 though!
Profile
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 319
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 03-05-2012 at 06:48
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-02 22:50, tiompan wrote:
If the cardinals went through one or any number of AH's it would be considered salient , similarly if they avoid them but why should it even be a consideration ?
George
|
|
__________
I guess it's because I don't understand a great deal about Stage I.
Attempting to understand the placement of the Aubreys might lend a tiny look inside the minds' of those who designed it.
They clearly avoided placing them in-line with a Major or Minor Cardinal, while those of a later age might have thought it important to align them.
Possibly this is more appropriately discussed on the Mysteries Forum, but in my own defense George (lol) you're the one who sent me packing to my Sanctum for a total re-think!
__________
Now let's talk about Stone 11.
Spill it George -- tell us what you know!
Is it standing there in its original size or was it altered to just sit there looking puny? Is the work on it any help?
The Lead Question - way back there on Page One - involved stacking the completed Sarsens in a sort of staged Production Line - evidenced by that area to the north, assumed to be a work station.
I led with this because Stone 10 has the outline of a regular lintel-edge on it, transversely across the top center, indicating that the Lintel 110 would have been a standard size.
Additionally, 10 has 2 tenons on it, supposing that they intended to put a lintel across an otherwise normal 11 as well.
So then: Could the 'Mass-Produced' theory account for 10 being just another Stone in the pile, making 11 its purposeful size?
If so, why was the lintel between 9 & 10 a standard length instead of fully out to the south edge - as with a Trilithon?
Has anyone ever scratched around 11 to see it it's got a regular sized base?
Profile
Email
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 826
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 03-05-2012 at 07:22
Quote:
| If the cardinals went through one or any number of AH's it would be considered salient , similarly if they avoid them but why should it even be a consideration ? |
|
I guess the interesting thing is that the original monument is mostly set out relatively accurately (excepting 53,54 and 55), so the position of holes appears to follow a setting out plan. What's also interesting, perhaps, is the method you would have to use to do that exercise: Almost all methods start with an initial centre and an initial direction (or vector).
If you go with theory that the Aubreys are some form of astronomical calculator dial (just picking out my best understanding from a skim-read of what North, Thom and so on were arguing), it would be evident that the neolithic people would be fully aware of exactly what cardinals were: Given that the holes don't seem to be argued to be stellar alignment devices, the interesting question, perhaps, is why they would set out a circle so accurately but not apparently bother to accurately align the initial setting out vector to the most fundamental, and most relevant, understanding of their time: The cardinals.
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2707
OFF-Line
| Posted 03-05-2012 at 11:10
Jon , Hawkins and Hoyle were the main proponents of the astro importance of the Aubrey Holes , Thom and North didn’t have much to say in the way of alignments ,other than Thom’s avoidance comment .
Why should cardinals be fundamental ? Equinox direction possibly but they are not always due east and west . North and south are merely divisions of their orientation . Some stone circles in Cumbria arguably have a northerly entrance but it is not found as a common component elsewhere . I have found a few sites and noted previously recorded where cup marks and radials are oriented on the cardinals but there are plenty of others that are not .
George
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 826
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 03-05-2012 at 18:02
hi George
Quote:
| Why should cardinals be fundamental ? |
|
Fundamental to the idea of a celestial observatory.. Not necessarily fundamental to any other purpose.
If you take the view that Stonehenge 1 was the beginnings of an observatory and/or astronomical calculator, then knowing which direction was which seems to me to be fairly fundamental?
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2707
OFF-Line
| Posted 03-05-2012 at 18:21
In all the astronomically aligned monuments that we are aware from the Neothlic -Bronze Age there is no evidence of observation or use of the monument for calculation , any observation or calculation would have been done prior to the building of an alignemt like a passage in a passage grave or avenue .These alignments to important astro events like solstices /standstills etc would not need any knowledge of concepts like cardinals and there is little evidence apart from the previously mentioned Cumbrian stone circle entrances of any interest in them .
George
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-03 18:02, jonm wrote:
hi George
Quote:
| Why should cardinals be fundamental ? |
|
Fundamental to the idea of a celestial observatory.. Not necessarily fundamental to any other purpose.
If you take the view that Stonehenge 1 was the beginnings of an observatory and/or astronomical calculator, then knowing which direction was which seems to me to be fairly fundamental?
|
|
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 826
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 03-05-2012 at 19:20
Quote:
| These alignments to important astro events like solstices /standstills etc would not need any knowledge of concepts like cardinals and there is little evidence apart from the previously mentioned Cumbrian stone circle entrances of any interest in them . |
|
Might possibly be getting off Neil's line of inquiry here: Do you think it is possible that they would have constructed monuments to particular alignments prior to having the motivation to learn about the skies for navigation purposes?
Monuments to particular alignments seem to me to be way up there in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, whereas navigation is associated with survival. One of the simplest ways to navigate is by using the sun and/or the stars. If you know how to navigate using the stars or sun, surely you have a default knowledge of at least one cardinal direction?
edit:
Great point by the way.
[ This message was edited by: jonm on 2012-05-03 19:21 ]
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2707
OFF-Line
| Posted 03-05-2012 at 20:00
Polynesian sailors still use the star compass , direction is interpreted by the rising and setting of stars with the directions named after the event e.g. NE could be Vega rising which is the same as NE is to us but derived from a different cognitive framework i.e. not a graded dial but a living sky , interestingly south tends not to have dedicated star rising or setting ., wehreas north west and east do . The system is still taught today and works perfectly no need for the the concept of north and south and bisection of angles . Possibly the fundmental orientations were that of the solstices , providing a mental map of a saltire rather than our more artificial greek cross .
The alignment of monuments had a different purpose but the skills and knowledge for navigation on land may not have been that high on the hierarchy of needs as for those who sailed and getting that orientation right came before knowing the the cardinals in the hierarchy too .
George
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-03 19:20, jonm wrote:
Quote:
| These alignments to important astro events like solstices /standstills etc would not need any knowledge of concepts like cardinals and there is little evidence apart from the previously mentioned Cumbrian stone circle entrances of any interest in them . |
|
Might possibly be getting off Neil's line of inquiry here: Do you think it is possible that they would have constructed monuments to particular alignments prior to having the motivation to learn about the skies for navigation purposes?
Monuments to particular alignments seem to me to be way up there in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, whereas navigation is associated with survival. One of the simplest ways to navigate is by using the sun and/or the stars. If you know how to navigate using the stars or sun, surely you have a default knowledge of at least one cardinal direction?
edit:
Great point by the way.
[ This message was edited by: jonm on 2012-05-03 19:21 ]
|
|
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 826
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 03-05-2012 at 20:37
Quote:
| Polynesian sailors ..... Possibly the fundmental orientations were that of the solstices , providing a mental map of a saltire rather than our more artificial greek cross . |
|
Some interesting thoughts, but don't Polynesian sailors have a system directly suited to the particular environment in which they survive? Even then, the sailors would be aware of at least two cardinal directions: East and West. (Though in their particular environment, these directions may have held little special significance.)
If we do ignore the idea that navigation is an essential survival tool for land based early man, I still can't see the logic for the argument that monuments were built to particular alignments without the people who built those monuments having tried beforehand to make some sense of the skies as a whole.
Have I misunderstood?
[ This message was edited by: jonm on 2012-05-03 20:38 ]
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2707
OFF-Line
| Posted 03-05-2012 at 22:56
You don't need the concept of cardinals to understand solar, lunar and some stellar cycles .
George
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-03 20:37, jonm wrote:
Quote:
| Polynesian sailors ..... Possibly the fundmental orientations were that of the solstices , providing a mental map of a saltire rather than our more artificial greek cross . |
|
Some interesting thoughts, but don't Polynesian sailors have a system directly suited to the particular environment in which they survive? Even then, the sailors would be aware of at least two cardinal directions: East and West. (Though in their particular environment, these directions may have held little special significance.)
If we do ignore the idea that navigation is an essential survival tool for land based early man, I still can't see the logic for the argument that monuments were built to particular alignments without the people who built those monuments having tried beforehand to make some sense of the skies as a whole.
[ This message was edited by: jonm on 2012-05-03 20:38 ]
|
|
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 826
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 03-05-2012 at 23:11
Quote:
| You don't need the concept of cardinals to understand solar, lunar and some stellar cycles .
George |
|
We must be talking at cross purposes George. I can't see a circumstance where one would not be aware of at least one cardinal direction. Especially east and west. Even the polynesian example has an unusual and special navigational significance for stars in those two cardinal directions.
Could you give an example of how one could understand a celestial cycle without realising that one or more cardinal directions was more significant than any other angle?
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2707
OFF-Line
| Posted 04-05-2012 at 00:04
Jon , An observer interested in the understanding the solar cycle might start by noting the extremes e.g. of rising , setting and possibly zenith in the annual cycle ,the more complex lunar cycle would take more time but the salient points of each body when described or imagined one dimensionally (zeniths might be understood but omitted here )would not need any reference to cardinal points . There would be clear NE -SW and NW SE axes that might be imagined and given the priority that we give cardinals . Equinoxes are unlikely to have been recognised from our perspective of equal day and night as it is unlikely that anybody was counting the hours of that day or the amount of days between the solstices they would simply be the the bisection of the extremes and therefore less salient .Another problem with the equinoxes is that they are only cardinally accurate with a flat horizon , if it is hilly it will not be due east or west .
George
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 826
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 04-05-2012 at 08:35
I'm having difficulty buying in to this idea George.
Solstices and equinoxes and cardinals defined by such ideas as 'the eastern star' are all affected by changes in viewing elevation.
To use solstices as your reference system, you must wait six months to define the directions. Isn't it a little easier for ordinary people to understand the concept of east and west? There's a whole bunch of equatorial stars that can be used as handy markers to pinpoint exactly where the cardinals are (not forgetting that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west)
Just as a check, I had a look at ancient egyptian to see if they understood east and west: It seems to be a well defined concept used as a noun and adjective East
To use solstices as a reference system, you've got to be a culture wholly unconcerned with navigation (nobody has the time to wait 6 months to find out which direction to go in)
Do you have an example of any culture which sets its cardinal directions using solstices rather than east/west/north/south?
Cheers
Jon
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2707
OFF-Line
| Posted 04-05-2012 at 10:43
Jon , it is not so much a case of reference system , it is what is significant or what is necessary to your cosmology ,you can understand the lunar and solar cycles without the cardinal concept . Although never recorded it is clear that the Egyptians had an interest in cardinal points Djoser , the Sphinx and all nine Giza pyramids are accurately aligned on them we are aware of this simply by studying the monuments , we don’t find anything similar in the megalithic European structures . An example of well recorded orientations for a monument type is that of passage graves .When the alignments are considered the most striking feature is that they overwhelmingly point to that part of the sky where the sun be seen sometime in the year , orientations towards the northern quadrant of the horizon is very rare with the other three cardinals no more favoured than anything else . The Egyptians and later cultures e.g. Chinese and builders of Cahokia showed an interest in cardinal orientations but it is not significant in European prehistory .
George
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-04 08:35, jonm wrote:
I'm having difficulty buying in to this idea George.
Solstices and equinoxes and cardinals defined by such ideas as 'the eastern star' are all affected by changes in viewing elevation.
To use solstices as your reference system, you must wait six months to define the directions. Isn't it a little easier for ordinary people to understand the concept of east and west? There's a whole bunch of equatorial stars that can be used as handy markers to pinpoint exactly where the cardinals are (not forgetting that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west)
Just as a check, I had a look at ancient egyptian to see if they understood east and west: It seems to be a well defined concept used as a noun and adjective East
To use solstices as a reference system, you've got to be a culture wholly unconcerned with navigation (nobody has the time to wait 6 months to find out which direction to go in)
Do you have an example of any culture which sets its cardinal directions using solstices rather than east/west/north/south?
Cheers
Jon
|
|
Profile
Reply
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 2425
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 04-05-2012 at 11:14
Can I just stick my oar in here 
Knowth (part of the Boyne Valley complex of passage mounds with Newgrange aligned to Winter Solstice Sunrise, and Dowth aligned to winter Solstice Sunset ) is aligned East-west which makes it open to both Equinoxes rise and set. This complex contains more megalithic art than the rest of Europe. One of the mounds measures over an acre, so along with SH, their construction was a major undertaking.
Just to the north, Townleyhall passage mound (ruined) aligns to the Summer Solstice. Further afield but not by much, the chamber at Loughcrew contains a daisywheel carving which is illuminated by the Equinoxes' rising sun.
Does that not suggest that solar patterns including equinoxes were important in that time? It's said Knowth aligns East-West, but why, considering the other specific alignments of its neighbours, is it not thought that the equinox alignment was an equally important factor to its builders? Why would they build the other mounds with alignment-specific passages and then Knowth with no pre=planned alignment, it doesn't make sense.
My opinion is the builders of these monuments were much more knowledgeable about what went on in the skies than we give them credit for and they demonstrate that with their constructions, because what went on in the sky affected their daily lives to an extent we can only guess at.
We can't even fathom out what their art means, so I don't think we're in a position to entirely dismiss any possibility.
Rune
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