Featured Title:
Cave Of Forgotten Dreams on DVD |
 |
| The Bull of Minos |
 |
| 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, 105 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 Lintel Awareness Campaign
|
 |
| Page 2 of 9 ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 ) |
| Author |
Stonehenge Lintel Awareness Campaign |
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 1710
from Bridgend,S.Wales
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 26-08-2012 at 00:26
It's quite obvious that the lintels were important.
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=My_eGallery&do=showpic&pid=92941
Dovecotes, chicken coops or maybe jackdaws were a delicacy?
 Profile
 Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 819
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 26-08-2012 at 07:45
In comparison with sarsen most stones will be softer but they managed to egt from Wales to Wiltshire and most are still standing , so not that soft .
Unless you go with Brian John's view that they weren't transported?
It would be interesting to do a ND test on this type of rock. I don't suppose EH wouldn't take kindly to me rocking up with the schmidthammer though. My guess would be that rocks such as this (and sarsen come to that) pose some particular transportation issues because they're more likely to be vulnerable to tensile creep cracking than other types of rock... anyone know if this is the case?
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 819
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 26-08-2012 at 08:50
Thinking about possible uses of Stonehenge to calculate precession:
Tim Daw notes that the integrated web portal for the Astronomy and World Heritage Initiative has just been launched (or re-launched). The site features Stonehenge as one of the special astronomical locations:
Stonehenge
I thought this was interesting because of the language used. Mostly they stick with 'likely' and 'appears to' but occasionally the text moves to what appears to be unqualified confirmation that Stonehenge was intended to align/observe astronomical events.
In particular, Durrington Walls Southern Circle appears to be unqualified. I was surprised how fast MPP's relatively unqualified statements about axis (eg p342) have managed to be translated so quickly into unqualified statements about alignment on a United Nations website.
Profile
Reply
|
Lintelman
Joined:
23-08-2012
Messages: 33
OFF-Line
| Posted 26-08-2012 at 16:17
Then maybe the time is right for this:
I wonder if you experts would have a look at the calcs I have done in the attached images. (I'm not too sure about the technology here - I hope you can download and enlarge.)
On my site I've said that it might have been the case that the accuracy of the upper lintel surface was desired so that measurements could be taken of the precession of the equinoxes. I hasten to add that I'm just exploring the possibility, I'm not an earnest advocate, and this is not the theme in my novel - that's what it says on the label - about defective gods.
The calcs geometry is tortuous and I would appreciate a critical examination. Maybe someone has already done it? But if Hipparchus and Ptolemy arrived at a rotation speed of 1 degree every 72 years, then it looks as though the movement was observable, if you chose the right star to look at. I arrive at 175mm on the lintel inner face in 72 years, as seen by an observer in the centre of the trilithon horseshoe looking north - eastwards at azimuths from a point just below the lintel plane.
(see below for image links)
[ This message was edited by: Andy B on 2012-08-27 11:28 ]
Profile
 Email
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2658
OFF-Line
| Posted 26-08-2012 at 16:32
They still had to be transported somehow whether human or the glacier /human hybrid . No evidence that the the area around Stonehenge was glaciated and best bet even from the galcial proponents is Westbury ,so still a few miles of human transport wahtever the explanation .
George
Quote:
|
On 2012-08-26 07:45, jonm wrote:
In comparison with sarsen most stones will be softer but they managed to egt from Wales to Wiltshire and most are still standing , so not that soft .
Unless you go with Brian John's view that they weren't transported?
It would be interesting to do a ND test on this type of rock. I don't suppose EH wouldn't take kindly to me rocking up with the schmidthammer though. My guess would be that rocks such as this (and sarsen come to that) pose some particular transportation issues because they're more likely to be vulnerable to tensile creep cracking than other types of rock... anyone know if this is the case?
|
|
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 819
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 26-08-2012 at 18:37
True George. I think I said the same thing to Brian from memory.
The transport issue is interesting though. There are some odd ideas going about.
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 819
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 26-08-2012 at 19:21
On my site I've said that it might have been the case that the accuracy of the upper lintel surface was desired so that measurements could be taken of the precession of the equinoxes.
Personally I doubt that Stonehenge was designed for observation at all: An alternative design for a precession instrument could be built for a fraction of the cost and do the job ten times better (for instance a single pointy stone on top of a hill with a very wide level chalk embankment around it and a few marker pebbles).
Interesting idea though.
Profile
Reply
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 1710
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| Posted 27-08-2012 at 00:55
Jon & Lintelman
The problem is you are both seeing things from a modern day perspective. Jon used the term "at a fraction of the cost" and Lintelman is a civil engineer, again interested in "cost".
Take the "cost" out of SH and see what you get.... lots of lintels to NE, and a horseshoe of trilithons pointing the same way! Oh, and loads of bluestones transported by Merlin.
Profile
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 27-08-2012 at 06:20
Quote:
|
On 2012-08-27 00:55, sem wrote:
Jon & Lintelman
The problem is you are both seeing things from a modern day perspective. Jon used the term "at a fraction of the cost" and Lintelman is a civil engineer, again interested in "cost".
Take the "cost" out of SH and see what you get.... lots of lintels to NE, and a horseshoe of trilithons pointing the same way! Oh, and loads of bluestones transported by Merlin.
|
|
At the risk of perhaps over-speaking with regard to both Jon's and Jack's remarks about 'cost', I think it's safe to say they were referring to the Cost in Labor - as in total work-hours and logistical support - not in terms of money spent.
Profile
Email
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 819
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 27-08-2012 at 07:29
Quote:
| Jon & Lintelman
The problem is you are both seeing things from a modern day perspective. Jon used the term "at a fraction of the cost" and Lintelman is a civil engineer, again interested in "cost". |
|
I'm not so sure Sem. Isn't 'value' or 'cost' one of the oldest ideas? There are very few structures on the planet which have been built with no regard to their cost (perhaps value is a better word). Is it reasonable to automatically assume that Stonehenge must one of them?
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2658
OFF-Line
| Posted 27-08-2012 at 10:24
That's a bit of a joke , the doc says “appear to have beeen deliberately aligned ,even appear is an exaggeration . Coneybury and Woodhenge are not aligned on the solstices . The former is just a myth originating from Julian Richards ? and oft repeated , the latter as anyone who looks at the Cunnington's plan can see is a highly selective choice of axis that cuts across the bank avoiding the entrance which must surely be considered the obvious focus of alignment . When Thom surveyed the monument he only imposed the line of the solstice on the plan never suggesting that the monument was aligned upon it ,worse , his plan was based on the concrete plinths which overlay the Cunnington plan which we now know had mistaken postholes for the sites of stones but the actual plan itself was regularly out . It takes an extreme leap of faith to describe the northern timber monument at Durrington as a “circle “ ,there is a common central four post arrangment surrounded by an amorphous setting of timbers any suggestion of an orientation would surely be the lines posts which are aligned far from any setting or rising of the sun or moon .
Durrington Walls 68 is described as a circle when it is four posts , I can't comment on the orientation as I have only read descriptions and seen the pics but four posts 4.5 m apart in a square setting can have ten possible "alignments " none particularly accurate and none more salient than any of the others .
George
Quote:
|
On 2012-08-26 08:50, jonm wrote:
Thinking about possible uses of Stonehenge to calculate precession:
Tim Daw notes that the integrated web portal for the Astronomy and World Heritage Initiative has just been launched (or re-launched). The site features Stonehenge as one of the special astronomical locations:
Stonehenge
I thought this was interesting because of the language used. Mostly they stick with 'likely' and 'appears to' but occasionally the text moves to what appears to be unqualified confirmation that Stonehenge was intended to align/observe astronomical events.
In particular, Durrington Walls Southern Circle appears to be unqualified. I was surprised how fast MPP's relatively unqualified statements about axis (eg p342) have managed to be translated so quickly into unqualified statements about alignment on a United Nations website.
|
|
[ This message was edited by: tiompan on 2012-08-27 10:31 ]
Profile
Reply
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 7007
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 27-08-2012 at 11:27
Lintelman's image links above should be
http://defectivegods.com/wp-content/uploads/precession-1of2.jpg
http://defectivegods.com/wp-content/uploads/precession-2of2.jpg
(I've not embedded them as they are quite large)
and his site is
http://defectivegods.com/
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Lintelman
Joined:
23-08-2012
Messages: 33
OFF-Line
| Posted 27-08-2012 at 16:36
Quote:
|
On 2012-08-27 00:55, sem wrote:
Jon & Lintelman
The problem is you are both seeing things from a modern day perspective. Jon used the term "at a fraction of the cost" and Lintelman is a civil engineer, again interested in "cost".
|
|
Sem, it is a very long time since I was a practicing civil engineer interested not just in cost, but actually in achieving a physical objective. My interests now are far more closely aligned with matching what might be interpreted as a conjunction between an anthropological speculation and archaeological material evidence. In this perspective, I have tried to place that part of my mind that understands what is involved in building things - and which involve battling with forces of nature, as opposed to people or ideas - in a bronze-age context, having before me the hard evidence of what they actually produced.
So my analysis is confined to the process of building only, and I maintain that, no matter what the overall objective of the structure, or however I ended up carving stones and lifting them up, the process of construction and erection is, I can assure you, timeless. I can imagine that many non-builders will say that we have science and machinery today that make it all easy. No - wrong! We still push our capabilities to the limit and engineering is not easy, we have to make up for the inadequacies of our miserably skimpy scientific knowledge. This is why bridges collapse, rockets explode, and your computer can throw a wobbly.
By mentally placing myself in these circumstances, I come to the conclusion that no-one would even conceive of creating a perfectly(relatively) circular arc, with a perfectly horizontal top, in rock, elevated, in the early bronze-age unless they had an extremely good reason - by their measure.
Now, if they were worshiping the god of horizontality, or maybe geometry, or even civil engineering! then it might be worthwhile, but don't you think that scenario to be somewhat unlikely?
Profile
Email
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 819
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 28-08-2012 at 06:28
Jeez George, I'd just taken the alignment stuff of other monuments at face value: Are there any monuments in the area with provable alignments to horizon events?
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 819
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 28-08-2012 at 06:41
Quote:
| By mentally placing myself in these circumstances, I come to the conclusion that no-one would even conceive of creating a perfectly(relatively) circular arc, with a perfectly horizontal top, in rock, elevated, in the early bronze-age unless they had an extremely good reason - by their measure. |
|
Agreed. This seems to shout out that there's a non-aesthetic logic behind the construction.
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 819
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 28-08-2012 at 08:33
Quote:
| Sem, it is a very long time since I was a practicing civil engineer interested not just in cost, but actually in achieving a physical objective. |
|
That reminds me of the changes which occurred in the late '80's. At that time, the civil engineering lobby was very powerful and handled all contract and cost matters on civil engineering jobs. But the arrangements were very established and cosy: There was a lack of focus on new ideas and methods. Project Management was the new idea and it had all sorts of new advantages brought about by the latest computer technology.
The profession didn't adapt very well by comparison to the professions on the continent (I'm thinking of France in particular) and The ICE conditions of contract finally died last year. There's no initial incentive to consider new ideas and methods when comfortable old ways are well established. By the time it was realised what the impact of the new ways would be, it was far too late to join the party.
There's an obvious technological expression of some kind been put into Stonehenge: Perhaps it too could represent how new ideas and methods came to prominence over the old ways?
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2658
OFF-Line
| Posted 28-08-2012 at 08:37
Quote:
|
On 2012-08-28 06:28, jonm wrote:
Jeez George, I'd just taken the alignment stuff of other monuments at face value: Are there any monuments in the area with provable alignments to horizon events?
|
|
Jon , it's the old story of checking these claims if someone doesn't do it ,it gets repeated then becomes reified . It would be good to discover who actually wrote the article , it's unlikely to be Ruggles who had commented on some of the problems concerning Woodhenge but that was before he would have known about the Cunnington inaccuracies and the fact that Thom 's plan was based based on the inaccuracies .
I'm pretty sure that Julian Richards was the the source of Coneybury myth as his excavation was the first to get any sense of the dimensions /shape of the monument . In his book there are two plans of the henge one a magnetometer survey and the other an archaeological plan , both have a northing but there is a difference of 32 degrees between them (38 -70 ) for the entrance and although both face NE neither are close at no time has any figures for the alignment been given . The Durrington walls avenue is quite close but it wouldn't be if they had found a section lower down nearer the river where it would have a dramatically different horizon . The southern timber circle arguably is ok but once again it's the eye of faith is there really a clear orientation through the mass of timbers . All figures/data available if required .
George
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 819
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 28-08-2012 at 09:58
Thanks George. Given our previous chats, I'm pretty certain you'll be correct.
On the subject of slag (I doubt we'll get away from this acronym), Tim Daw's just noticed that the remains of furnace slag, or similar heat treated clinker, seem to being dug up by a rabbit from beneath one of the stones:
Stonehenge slag
Profile
Reply
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 1710
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| Posted 29-08-2012 at 00:23
Quote:
|
On 2012-08-27 16:36, Lintelman wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2012-08-27 00:55, sem wrote:
Jon & Lintelman
The problem is you are both seeing things from a modern day perspective. Jon used the term "at a fraction of the cost" and Lintelman is a civil engineer, again interested in "cost".
|
|
Sem, it is a very long time since I was a practicing civil engineer interested not just in cost, but actually in achieving a physical objective. My interests now are far more closely aligned with matching what might be interpreted as a conjunction between an anthropological speculation and archaeological material evidence. In this perspective, I have tried to place that part of my mind that understands what is involved in building things - and which involve battling with forces of nature, as opposed to people or ideas - in a bronze-age context, having before me the hard evidence of what they actually produced.
So my analysis is confined to the process of building only, and I maintain that, no matter what the overall objective of the structure, or however I ended up carving stones and lifting them up, the process of construction and erection is, I can assure you, timeless. I can imagine that many non-builders will say that we have science and machinery today that make it all easy. No - wrong! We still push our capabilities to the limit and engineering is not easy, we have to make up for the inadequacies of our miserably skimpy scientific knowledge. This is why bridges collapse, rockets explode, and your computer can throw a wobbly.
By mentally placing myself in these circumstances, I come to the conclusion that no-one would even conceive of creating a perfectly(relatively) circular arc, with a perfectly horizontal top, in rock, elevated, in the early bronze-age unless they had an extremely good reason - by their measure.
Now, if they were worshiping the god of horizontality, or maybe geometry, or even civil engineering! then it might be worthwhile, but don't you think that scenario to be somewhat unlikely?
|
|
Hi Lintelman
I hope you don't think I'm arguing for the sake of it here, but the "god of horizontality" seems as likely a source of inspiration as anything else - if you include the odd nod to deities from the previous 6000yrs! Where else is there a stone circle with a completely flat "horizon"? SH lintels were obviously designed to impress.
Cheers
Sem
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 819
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 29-08-2012 at 09:08
SH lintels were obviously designed to impress.
Is that true? Generally designs that seek to make an impression look good on the outside but have little other functional substance. For example, film sets and bill-boards are designed to impress: The function of these designs, which they do admirably, is to impress at the first opportunity.
The Stonehenge lintels, whilst impressive, are inward-facing. This element of the Stonehenge design appears to fall distinctly into a category where first impressions are of a lesser importance than some other function.
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