Featured Title:
Stone Circle Greetings Cards |
 |
| Hengeworld |
 |
| 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, 119 guests and 0 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 Lintel Awareness Campaign
|
 |
| Page 8 of 9 ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 ) |
| Author |
Stonehenge Lintel Awareness Campaign |
Lintelman
Joined:
23-08-2012
Messages: 33
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 09-11-2012 at 09:28
George,
Then I think we are at the nub of, at least my, disagreement with yourself. It certainly has to do with the interpretation and use of words and the meanings behind them, but this is not the forum to expand upon that topic, so let me focus on this point about the evidence of the purposes of SH.
You are saying, I feel quite sure now, that there is no evidence of SH being used as an observatory, and by that, I mean a structure against which the Sun, Moon and stars and their paths were observed and, therefore, measured.
On this, George, I believe you to be probably wrong. The evidence I have cited in this thread has been the fact that the upper surfaces of the 'circle' of lintels have been purposely and with great difficulty set in a horizontal plane. This, to someone who has used optical surveying equipment, is an aspect of the design that is too closely associated with the concept of an artificial horizon, for it to be an accident. The evidence is not conclusive. But no one has yet provided me with a cogent argument that the structure is the shape it is for any other purpose.
Jack
 Profile
 Email
 Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 817
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 09-11-2012 at 10:34
Hi Jack
If it's of interest, I've put the full document up here. I modified some of the text in part two following our discussions. Would be interested in your comments. It's freely downloadable on Sunday.
Jon
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2644
OFF-Line
| Posted 09-11-2012 at 12:46
Jack , You make comments like “ In your statements you have made a few claims that don't sit well with information that I've read elsewhere. “ Then don't supply any examples . “there are some rather obvious flaws in this argument, “ then don't supply any examples .“I detect in your comments something of a scornful contempt for the epistemological benefits of practical experimentation.” Then don't supply any examples , despite having been asked to do so. “It certainly has to do with the interpretation and use of words and the meanings behind them ,but this is not the forum to expand upon that topic, “ At least there you have an excuse , but why make these comments if you are unwilling/unable to expand upon them ?
After all that and having failed to respond to the basic points against Stonehenge and other megalithic monuments being observatories as well as many other subsidiary points the reply is “ I believe you to be probably wrong” , hardly a refutation , and the evidence for SH being an observatory is finally based on your experience of surveying and use of artificial horizons and one comment “no one has yet provided me with a cogent argument that the structure is the shape it is for any other purpose. “ .Work experience and a failure to understand the reasons for the architecture of a building is not evidence for it's use astronomically .
Even if there was some credence for the idea , there is no “circle “ of lintels as you describe and no reason to believe there ever was . Why have an artificial horizon of nearly 18 degrees in alt. ? What about all the other components of the monument e.g. , bluestone circle and horseshoe ,how do they fit in to the “observatory “ ? The sarsen horseshoe which would not only have have impinged on the “observations “ towards the sarsen their alt. would be closer to 60 degrees , a fine artificial horizon , but not much use for the purposes you suggest .
Avebury and Callanish were also mentioned as being .. “erected to provide a means of measuring time against the movement of the heavens “ .Where are the lintelled artificial horizons at these sites ? Avebury has the henge bank and at a more sensible alt for observation of just over a degree it might be a more reasonable choice but banks are all important typologically for henges and not all provide the horizon . Callanish just has the natural horizon , all that is needed to do the astronomy in the first place and no need for the stones either , just as everyone managed before and since .
George
Profile
Reply
|
Lintelman
Joined:
23-08-2012
Messages: 33
OFF-Line
| Posted 11-11-2012 at 15:14
George,
I have not engaged with you on citing examples because, as I think I said or certainly intended to imply a long way back, the arguments of that style, unless they are as rigorously precise as it is possible to be, as in the case of a learned society paper that is peer reviewed, degenerate into meaningless point scoring. From my own experience of writing quite a few technical papers, I have concluded, over the years, that a wise man is the person who knows enough to know how little he knows - on any subject.
Pursuing this maxim, what I have tried to do in this post is to engage in a reasonably light-hearted debate around the topic of the possibility of SH having been an observatory of sorts in the hope that enough people would become alerted to the significance of the horizontal plane idea that the 'experts' would investigate it seriously. I hope I've never made any assertions that I'm absolutely correct on anything - except, maybe, that mere words can never precisely describe anything (see the post-modernists for the argument there).
So, getting back to SH, and picking up your argument about altitude measurements, I cannot remember ever suggesting that the circle or arc of lintels (no-one George knows which it was or was intended to be) would have been used for altitude measurements, I have been speaking of azimuth measurements. Oh yes, and what is all this about architecture you mention? Have I missed something there? Is there evidence of some sort of horizontal symbolism in neolithic or bronze-age architecture that answers my question?
I recall that you cited several sites bearing some similarity of structure, but I don't recall any references to anthropological investigations in that regard.
Jack
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Lintelman
Joined:
23-08-2012
Messages: 33
OFF-Line
| Posted 11-11-2012 at 15:17
Well don Jon. When I get a mo I'll do a review on Amazon.
Jack
Profile
Email
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2644
OFF-Line
| Posted 11-11-2012 at 16:04
Jack , thankfully the days of turning to Post modernism and misusing terms like deconstruction are in the past and as before Derrida et al discussion ,discourse and debate can clarify problems . If you prefer not to use these pre and post postmodernist methods then discussion groups are not ideal and why make make the suggestion about the lintels and and “observation “ at megalithic sites in clear non post modernist terms ?
The altitude was in relation to astronomy , not measuring altitudes , if the lintels are to be the artificial horizon then the alt is critical for astronomical observations , e.g. the alt of the sun at it's zenith on winter solstice is less than 16 degrees and wouldn't get above the lintels. Another basic problem for the idea , one of many that have been avoided due to , a post modernist reluctance ? to debate these issues .
George
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 817
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-11-2012 at 09:54
Quote:
| Well don Jon. When I get a mo I'll do a review on Amazon.
Jack |
|
Thanks Jack. I'm particularly interested in your views because you're more qualified than me to pronounce on Part 2. I think I've quantified it enough.
I've also removed some of the detail because it would only interest researchers and I don't get the impression that there's too much interest from that quarter.
Fascinating news: You remember that I thought we were 30 years off from needing this type of solar concentration technology? (was it you or Neil that I discussed this with?) Turns out I was completely wrong and for a reason that I just hadn't anticipated. Not something that would interest the forum but will email when I know more.
All the best
Jon
Profile
Reply
|
Lintelman
Joined:
23-08-2012
Messages: 33
OFF-Line
| Posted 19-11-2012 at 08:32
George,
Sitting in my own little cultural paradigm I take a view on reality but, being sympathetic with the notions of post-modernism (at least the ones I think I understand) I accept that the process of communication with people sitting in other paradigms is fraught with difficulty. Therefore, would you please have a look at the following diagram showing a representation of the basis of measurement of altitude (astronomical) and azimuth
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Azimuth-Altitude_schematic.svg&page=1
If we can agree that the diagram is a fair representation of the concepts, can we also agree that a common feature in these two parameters is the need for a HORIZONTAL datum.
If we can agree on that, then we might also agree that we might have a possible explanation for the reason why the tops of the lintels fall into a horizontal plane. At this point I am quite prepared to accept that the whole notion may be a fabrication of a modern mind, but it is at least a feasible proposition?
Then we come to the argument that you can't see the Sun above the lintels in the Winter. Well, you can, if you stand on a big enough box. Who says that your eyeline needs to be at ground level?
Lintelman.
Profile
Email
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2644
OFF-Line
| Posted 19-11-2012 at 09:58
Lintelman, As well as discussion , havoc and a waste of a lot of time/pause for thought , PM did provide a bit of fun in the 80s-90's but despite it all here we all are blethering away as logocentric as ever and still managing to make sense whatever the paradigm.
Yes , I agree the diagram is a fair representation of the concept of altitude . An artificial horizontal datum is useful but not necessary . In practical terms if you want to know where the sun sets or rises in relation to the real horizon at a particular site it's almost useless . In the case of Stonehenge the solstice can be observed on the real horizon along the axis of the monument without any intervening artificial horizon or monolithic obstruction , this alone demonstrates that an artificial horizon was not only unnecessary it wasn't even used for the most obvious alignment at the monument . The suggestion of observers standing on boxes is a further multiplication of unnecessary entities ,another would be the ladder but lets not forget the most obvious one the observer .Long before the lintels ,boxes and ladders we can be more sure of an observer(s) who did observe and record the solstice position with no need of an artificial horizon .
George
Profile
Reply
|
Lintelman
Joined:
23-08-2012
Messages: 33
OFF-Line
| Posted 25-11-2012 at 08:45
George, but what about the observation and measurement of the risings of stars and the Moon? Is it really plausible that prehistoric people would only wish to think about the Sun? And is it really plausible that no-one prior to the Greeks (or earlier 'literate' societies) possessed a sufficiently inquiring mind to wonder why the stars changed position? If they did, then the most convenient way of measuring the movement would surely be by azimuth, along a clearly observable, permanent, fixed, artificial horizon upon which they could leave benchmarks.
However, while I have been chatting with you, I have been asking myself, if my ideas have substance, how should I explain that the lintel circle/arc where not laid on an embankment? It would have been a lot easier to build than the uprights. The only thing I can think is that the lintels needed to be inaccessible for some reason. As for the 30 uprights and the the 30 gaps (being one of the design criteria for the circle whether of not completed), the resultant 60 divisions has strong Pythagorean-type implications, does it not? Circles, sexagessima, horizontality - I don't see how anyone can believe that these guys were not involved in geometric/mathematical investigations and observations.
Jack
Profile
Email
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2644
OFF-Line
| Posted 25-11-2012 at 15:46
Jack , the altitude problem with the lintels would also apply to the moon , there would be times when a full moon could rise and set and never be seen above the lintels .
If , as seems likely , the lunar cycles or at least recognition of the lunar extremes were understood by Neolithic Britons then precession may may have been investigated but no need for Stonehenge or level lintels to do that .
The thirty sarsen uprights of the circle are what remains , there may have been more ,maybe not , but surely the sum of uprights and gaps would always be an odd number when a circle is incomplete i.e. 29 gaps from 30 uprights etc .
The builders may have been involved in geometrical /mathematical investigations but similarly they wouldn't have needed Stonehenge or the lintels for that .
George
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 817
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 27-11-2012 at 10:52
Quote:
| The only thing I can think is that the lintels needed to be inaccessible for some reason. |
|
Without a plausible explanation for the designed-in inaccessibility of the artificial horizon, any explanation of the level lintel rim which uses it as a working artificial horizon appears to defy Occam's razor?
Not saying that there's nothing to the observation that the rim forms a level artificial horizon, but there's also a secondary problem in that the near-distance horizon is above the level horizon in many directions: Stonehenge seems to be in the wrong place for a level horizon to be useful for astronomical purposes?
Profile
Reply
|
Lintelman
Joined:
23-08-2012
Messages: 33
OFF-Line
| Posted 03-12-2012 at 14:25
George,
I facetiously mentioned standing on boxes in an earlier comment, but the intention was to emphasise the logical possibility that the 'eyepiece' could have been made of any material, as could the stageing upon which an observer could have stood. The exactitude of the lintels and the plane would have been the prime requirement because the observer position could have been set relative to it - either in line at the circle centre, or at some dimension below it - all to suit the convenience of the observer and the paths of the bodies being observed. It wouldn't matter where that 'eyepiece' would have been located, provided the same observation point was repeatable.
Which brings me on to your point about the horizontality of the stone lintels not being 'needed' to observe the position of the Sun, Moon and stars. I feel that there is a cultural gulf between us on this one. Without knowing your background, I have difficulty dealing with you on this, so please bear with my probably futile attempt:
Alex Gibson has written about timber circles and has deduced some reasonably logical explanations for them being fitted with horizontal wooden lintels. But wood is known to bend under light loads over a long periods (consider the roofs of old houses). A light load can be a self weight. Wood also changes size with moisture content (particularly perpendicular to the grain).
You may then say that it is not necessary to have a large structure of 100ft diameter. You may argue that a simple wooden device might be made of say 3ft diameter to perform the observations I am suggesting. This is where I would disagree. I don't think it would be possible to construct such a thing of sufficient accuracy with the tools and equipment they had available, even if they had the confidence to believe that they could. Furthermore, the power structures in their societies would have probably been unimpressed with some guy's toy for predicting the time or the seasons or whatever. The big chief would have wanted to show how 'his' big idea could be signified - with something big. And, most importantly, in practice, the accuracy of angular measurement is proportional to the distance between the 'eyepiece' and the 'objective' (i.e. in this case - lintel).
Finally, on the number of uprights, I suggest that the design was of significance. If the designer calculated the spacing for 30 uprights and 30 gaps, surely that is the key to understanding his thoughts, rather than what was actually built or what is now left.
Jack
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Lintelman
Joined:
23-08-2012
Messages: 33
OFF-Line
| Posted 03-12-2012 at 14:39
Jon,
Observer height surely defines the intercept of the artificial horizon with the cosmos. Who says the observer eye is in the plane of the lintels?
And who says Occam's Razor is the way to go even if you're right?
Jack
Profile
Email
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2644
OFF-Line
| Posted 03-12-2012 at 16:58
Jack , the problem is that level lintels , trilithons of any height , stone circles of any diameter are all unnecessary for understanding where the sun sets at solstices or lunar cycles .That understanding was achieved in the historical period where we can actually read about the methodology , there is ethnographic evidence from complex hunter gather cultures that were interested in the same cycles for cosmological and calendrical purposes they never used stone circles for their observations . We don't know how the same results were achieved in prehistory but it is likely they were understood long before the earliest stone circles were even built ,once again no need for all that hardware .
There is the possibility as Gibson and others have noted that timber circles may have had horizontals but there is no reason or need to consider that they would have been used for astronomical observation either .
We don't know that there were 30 uprights complete with lintels at Stonehenge . There area two sockets for missing stones 13 and 20 but stones 17, 18,20 and 24 plus 24 lintels are missing , filling in these gaps is matter of faith they may or may not have existed ,we don't know .
George
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 817
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-12-2012 at 20:13
Quote:
| Observer height surely defines the intercept of the artificial horizon with the cosmos. Who says the observer eye is in the plane of the lintels? |
|
True; I get what you mean, but you don't need a perfectly level top surface for that; all you need is an accurate circle.
Quote:
| And who says Occam's Razor is the way to go even if you're right? |
|
Perhaps, but it's a principle that's quite well accepted: If a theory has to argue against Occam's Razor, it's unlikely to get accepted (unless the theory involves aliens)
Profile
Reply
|
Lintelman
Joined:
23-08-2012
Messages: 33
OFF-Line
| Posted 22-12-2012 at 08:46
George,
Sorry for the delay in responding. I agree that the horizontal circle/arc would not have been needed to determine solar movement and major variations in lunar cycles. But, if small variations in stellar movement was being studied then my argument is that this type of structure would have been justified from a utilitarian point of view.
As to the number of uprights - my argument is that the designers of Stonehenge must have calculated the spacings on the basis of 30 uprights and 30 gaps - so what was it that made them conceive of that configuration?
Jack
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Lintelman
Joined:
23-08-2012
Messages: 33
OFF-Line
| Posted 22-12-2012 at 09:06
jonm
Re Occam's chainsaw, I am disturbed by your apparently unquestioning belief in medieval philosophy jon. Have a look at http://skepdic.com/occam.html
The Occam's chainsaw position on school gun maniacs might be to equip all schoolchildren with assault rifles? Or on the banking crisis, that everyone should pay trillions of pounds to save them? Or to solve our transport problems, we should continue to build roads and railways to meet demand ad infinitum? Or to the energy crisis, that we should suck oil out of shale? Or to archaeology, that all previous societies were even more stupid than we are?
Happy Christmas.
Jack
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 2412
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 22-12-2012 at 13:31
Don't know if this will help or hinder, or if I've suggested it before, but.... Knight and Butler were at pains to explain that they thought the henge banks at Thornborough and elsewhere were constructed to make a flat artificial horizon enclosing area of isolation in which the heavens could be observed from the depression inside.
Would the lintels at Stonehenge have been used as well as the henge banks for observation, giving a double platform for sighting or timing perhaps?
Whilst we all appreciate that no stones or markers are necessary for observation of movement of the heavens, isn't it easier to have a fixed guideline to look at, on, beside, over and through, so you can judge and record what's moved where.
Some of the vertical markings on the lintels look like some form of a scale. If those markings tied in with solar, stellar or planetary events, surely this would strengthen Lintelman's theory. I see from checking his website, this could be precession of the equinoxes.
I think we have a topic here that's likely to be resolved on a balance of probability per individual acceptance, rather than the ever elusive proof.
Rune
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2644
OFF-Line
| Posted 22-12-2012 at 16:07
No rush Jack , the problem is that there is no evidence for , and we don't know if , small variations in the movement of stars was being studied .If they were then there were simpler constructions more fit for purpose which could have been used .We can also argue for a myriad of other possible utilitarian uses for the lintels .
We don't what the was in the mind of the builders , or how many uprights were actually used , or if 30 was the intended number . If it was 28 , 29 or 31 we would still be into lunar associations , maybe there was no numerical significance in what was the actual figure , maybe the building was an ongoing project that had no final plan .
George
Quote:
|
On 2012-12-22 08:46, Lintelman wrote:
George,
Sorry for the delay in responding. I agree that the horizontal circle/arc would not have been needed to determine solar movement and major variations in lunar cycles. But, if small variations in stellar movement was being studied then my argument is that this type of structure would have been justified from a utilitarian point of view.
As to the number of uprights - my argument is that the designers of Stonehenge must have calculated the spacings on the basis of 30 uprights and 30 gaps - so what was it that made them conceive of that configuration?
Jack
|
|
Profile
Reply
| |
| Go to Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
|
|
|
|
|
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