Featured Title:
Redhead, the new thriller by Ian Cook 'a compulsive read' |
 |
| Rocks & Rows, Sailing Routes across the Atlantic and the Copper Trade |
 |
| 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, 150 guests and 3 members online.
You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here |
| |
Moderated by : davidmorgan , TimPrevett , Andy B , Klingon , MickM , bat400 , sem , Runemage , TheCaptain
The Megalithic Portal and Megalith Map : Index >>
Sacred Sites and Megalithic Mysteries >> Solar alignments?
|
 |
| Author |
Solar alignments? |
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2708
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 18-11-2012 at 10:44
Quote:
|
On 2012-11-18 00:37, megalith6 wrote:
George wrote: "Symbolic direction is a euphemism for not aligned". Where does it state this, who are you referencing please?
Thanks,
Ric
|
|
Ric ,"Symbolic direction is a euphemism for not aligned" is my statement , you were asked many posts ago to provide examples from archaeology ,astronomy or architecture for the use of the term , none were forthcoming although it may have been used on some dodgy archaeoastronomy web site at some time to describe an alignment that doesn't fit into a theory . As has been explained an orientation can symbolise many things ,East for rebirth etc but in your usage it is being used to symbolise another orientation e.g. ”That's part of the whole point George, not all alignments need to be 100% accurate since some are using the cardinal directions *symbolically*. “ In this comment an orientation that is not aligned to the direction is considered to be “symbolically aligned “ .The reference to symbolism is not that related to cardinal points e.g. birth , death , etc but the orientation itself . Many churches are not aligned due east they can be a degrees off but we accept the intent . It is the concept east that bears the symbolism not the error in orientation .We understand this because we know of the traditions and symbolism of the belief system and most of the monuments face roughly in the same direction .This is not the case with prehistoric monuments which face in all directions but in this case we can only guess at the symbolism and beliefs .Some important examples face solstices , some like the churches are a bit off and we can guess that they are just rough attempts , but to include those as that are way off is not realistic , misleading and ultimately demeaning in that it suggests that the builders did not have the capabilities to accurately align the monument ,when they clearly did . If they aligned a monument a long way from a solstice orientation it is likely that was their intention and it is arrogant of 21st C observers to imagine that they can explain the supposed error in orientation in terms of their own beliefs about the cosmology of the period .
George
 Profile
 Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2708
OFF-Line
| Posted 18-11-2012 at 10:58
Ric , the source of the request was related to .
Quote:
You were clear enough but there is a fundamental problem with symbolism in general and that is is knowing what symbolises what , e.g. a spiral could symbolise many abstract concepts
and there are plenty of current examples where you could ask the artist what it actually symbolises for them .You may guess right if you belong to the same culture as the artist but there is no guarantee ,it might just be decoration and symbolise nothing or something entirely different to what you might imagine . To believe that you have an understanding of symbols from a culture that you know next to nothing about is foolhardy and purely guess work .
You replied “To avoid such pure guess work, and its pit falls - and in the absence of a time machine - recent thought has been to draw comparisons between similar cultures and come to intelligent conclusions that way. “
The initial comments as you can see were related to the problems inherent in moderns attempting the almost impossible task of interpreting abstract symbols , not comparative mythology or ethnography which also have their own problems .
George
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2708
OFF-Line
| Posted 18-11-2012 at 12:18
Ric , if there are specific examples where I have failed to use quotes in relation to your comments ,do mention them . If there are no references then none were required ,unless you spot something to the contrary ,in which case do mention it . If points are made then you assume that they are my opinions , if you can refute them , feel free .This applies to all previous posts in this thread .
George
Profile
Reply
|
Orpbit
Joined:
24-06-2012
Messages: 10
from Shropshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 19-11-2012 at 00:29
Just browsing through some of the topics and found this thread of interest to me. I'm not sure if this the right place as the content here is more technically oriented. In terms of solar alignments and local visibility horizons I thought the following might be of interest to any researchers here.
This site can give you a tool for finding solar orientations/alignments:
http://www.sollumis.com/
and this is a paper which illustrates how it can be used:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1211/1211.0915.pdf
Use the satellite image to find your location and once you zoom in far enough the lines of sunrise, noon and sunset are automatically drawn for you. It's pretty accurate for geometric values. Of course the local horizon can be quite different from the geometric horizon.
In this case, a good site to fnd the local horizon is "Heywhatsthat?":
http://www.heywhatsthat.com/
but you'll need to use Firefox as your browser - easy enough to install except it automatically makes it your default browser, so if you use Interent Explorer, you'll have to restore it to default. (It does work in IE but there are lots of issues so I don't recommend it). I have a specific interest in Mitchell's Fold stone circle, Shropshire, and I have made a local horizon profile which can be found here:
http://www.heywhatsthat.com/?view=M1S9N940
or scroll down to it by name (Mitchell's Fold Shropshire) in the "all panoramas" link.
The site creates two files which link you to GoogleEarth (.kmz file) and Google Sky (.kml file). In GoogleEarth you'll find some really good visibility information and in Google Sky you'll find the electronic horizon profile. It's pretty accurate all round, but it is less accurate the closer to the point of observation (for technical reasons as to how the algorithm measures altitudes).
I am creating a photographic panorama for Stellarium, as part of contributions here for the Mitchells Fold site thread, but there are still some issues to iron out. At the moment I think I am within 0.5° accuracy (1 Sun diameter approx.) but I'm hopeful that I can get it to 0.25° for the full 360°. However, Stellarium gets more innaccurate the further back you go in time so it's not necessarily good enough for detailed archaeoastronomy investigations, but still gives you a very good idea of what the ancients were "looking at". Once I succeed with Stellarium I hope to create a panorama for Starry Night Pro - but that's technically more difficult.
Ian Pegler has produced a photographic panorama for Mitchell's Fold, downloadable from the Stellarium resource page for panoramas. It has a number of innaccuracies as does his latest version - not available for download - and about which we have been in dialogue. My latest retake of the photographic panorama appears very accurate and matches the electronic version from "Heywhatsthat?" very closely.
Downloading Ian's version will at least give you an idea of the overall benfit of the photographic over the electronic but both have their respectives pros and cons and uses (particularly in the context of the most accurate close horizon alignments/orientations).
There is another site which can give you highly detailed tools for investigating all manner of archaeoastronomical queries:
http://www.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/aarde.htm
Victor Reijs who created the site has produced a .KMZ file for Sun and Moon paths. It provides the paths for equinoxes, summer and winter solstices for selected BC dates and Current Era (top rim and centre Sun positions) as well as Moon major and minor standstills for Current Era. Although it's not available from his site, Victor has given me permission to distribute it, so if anyone here is particularly keen on such specific detailed matters just let me know.
As always with such tools, one needs to play around a bit to get to know their value (and nuances). If you have any problems just ask and I'll try and sort them out if I can.
Ultimately, I have this idea that it might be useful to produce photographic panoramas for all of Alexander Thom's sites along with the electronic versions as illustrated above.
Apologies if some of this has already been made known elsewhere on this forum. Being relatively new here, I haven't got the time to read through so many threads in great detail.
Cheers,
Richard
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2708
OFF-Line
| Posted 19-11-2012 at 10:03
Richard , good to see mention of Victor's site , an oasis .
George
Profile
Reply
|
megalith6
Joined:
28-10-2001
Messages: 154
from London UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 20-11-2012 at 03:00
Quote:
|
On 2012-11-19 00:29, Orpbit wrote:
...I am creating a photographic panorama for Stellarium...
|
|
Thanks Richard,
Excellent. I used Stellarium to help me understand the night sky 4000 years ago, during the writing of this eBook. I make several points, personal theories really, about archeoastronomy within its virtual pages.
http://www.the-marian-cipher.com
Ric
Profile
 Email
Reply
|
megalith6
Joined:
28-10-2001
Messages: 154
from London UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 20-11-2012 at 03:29
Quote:
|
On 2012-11-18 10:44, tiompan wrote:
...an orientation can symbolise many things ,East for rebirth etc but in your usage it is being used to symbolise another orientation
|
|
Hi George. I think you misunderstand me. For example, the dual South Yarrows cairns orient or face east but not precisely so in terms of cardinal east. They still connote possible and probable east symbolism, such as dawn and spring, not to mention sunrise.
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=23103
They are also prehistoric architecture and carry this possible symbolism in their construction, so here we have my answer to your question on architecture and symbolic directions, or indeed actual directions. For instance, Newgrange encodes the actual direction for the winter solstice sunrise, and the winter sunrise probably symbolised the end of winter and the beginning of summer, because it was noticed that the days began to grow longer after the solstice. Parker-Pearson detected that it was the winter and not the summer solstice at Stonehenge which was so important to the people who gathered there locally, and this is possibly the reason.
Many thanks,
Ric
Profile
Email
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2708
OFF-Line
| Posted 20-11-2012 at 11:37
Ric , I do understand you . I don't think you understand the difference between east(erness ) , not 90 degrees or due east but the concept of East which symbolises re-birth etc . It is the concept not the azimuth that bears the symbolism .
You seem to have a need for finding a reason to show that all alignments are associated with the sun and for the vast majority that are not aligned to solar events ,as Hutton correctly mentioned , you simply argue that they are symbolically aligned . Not only is the symbolism conceptually flawed , the argument and criteria for what would be considered an alignment unacceptable to even the wooliest archaeoastronmer , the result is a meaningless list of monuments all somehow aligned on the sun if not in reality then symbolically. The baby i.e. the genuinely aligned monuments , has been drowned in a flood of the symbolically aligned , just to disprove Hutton . The problem is that if you really believe the argument for accepting the non aligned as being “symbolically aligned “ then it opens the door for anybody making the same claim . The moonshiners can have as good an argument as the sun stroked .They can use the same argument and say that all orientations are “symbolically “ aligned on the moon . As the moon covers a greater arc of the horizon than the sun , they could reasonably argue that more monuments fit into their orientations . Fortunately neither approach is considered in archaeoastronomy ,where there are universally accepted criteria for what can reasonably be considered an intentional alignment with both sun and moon having candidates .
The two cairns at Yarrows highlight the problems of whether we can actually make any definitive comment on their alignment and for these two examples it is probably best left open to question as has been the case up to now as the alignments of the passages are not that clear . The southerly cairn is described as being aligned as ENE and the northerly ESE ,this means that they are much closer to the summer solstice sun rise and winter solstice sun rise respectively and even the major lunar and minor lunar standstills than the equinox . From that perspective the loonies are closer “symbolically “ .The point is that most orientations are going to be relatively close to something lunar or solar to be considered “symbolic” and unless there is a degree of accuracy , as at the major monuments like Newgrange or Stonehenge , we should be more circumspect before leaping to conclusions .
MPP makes no claims to be an archaeoastronomer and defers to to Clive Ruggles on these matters but the possible primacy of the Winter solstice had been mentioned long before the dates of the feasting at Durrington were known .
George
Profile
Reply
|
Orpbit
Joined:
24-06-2012
Messages: 10
from Shropshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 22-11-2012 at 17:23
Quote:
|
On 2012-11-20 03:00, megalith6 wrote:
...I used Stellarium to help me understand the night sky 4000 years ago, during the writing of this eBook...
|
|
Unfortunately Stellarium has serious errors the further back in time that you take it. Comparing with Skymap and Starry Night Pro(SNP), this amounts to several hundred years, for the same position parameters, at around 2500 BC. This is a Delta-T issue which Victor Reijs queried with the developers of Stellarium, but I don't think he ever got an answer as to corrections. You'll find details of his tests of various digital planetaria on his website.
For this reason after completing the most accurate panorama for Stellarium that I can, I will try SNP - or I should say "again" because I couldn't get a dummy horizon to work on my version (6.4.3). I would welcome a dialogue with anyone here who's tried on this version of SNP and succeeded. However, I don't want to hijack this particular thread on solar alignments so probably better off-line or start another thread (It's a bit technical anyway - and therefore somewhat boring to many!).
Richard
[ This message was edited by: Orpbit on 2012-11-22 17:25 ]
Profile
Reply
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 1722
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| Posted 23-11-2012 at 00:50
Hi Orpbit
Anything involving computers is going to be controversial to some people along with mathematical "observations". As has been said many times in this thread and others, local horizons are entirely different to theoritical horizons.
Feel free to start a new forum topic, if YOU think it is required.
Best wishes
Sem
[ This message was edited by: sem on 2012-11-23 00:52 ]
Profile
Reply
|
megalith6
Joined:
28-10-2001
Messages: 154
from London UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 23-11-2012 at 03:23
[quote]
On 2012-11-20 11:37, tiompan wrote as above.
Dear George, I have plans for both South Yarrows cairns and by the plans, using ruler & protractor, these monuments face broadly cardinal east, though not exactly so. I have ducked behind both monuments c/o Google Earth and watched the equinoctial sunrise convincingly in line with these long, ancient constructions - each *axis* points broadly to cardinal east.
Ronald Hutton's statement is increasingly meaningless to me the longer I look at it, because he doesn't qualify the use of the adjective 'cardinal' which for a professor of history & delving into archeoastronomy is lax to say the least - sticklers for accuracy, linguistic & archaeological, might find it unpardonable. I find irritable, rather amateur in fact.
I understand your enthusiasm for absolute angles & azimuths & I am sorry that you seem to feel challenged by my less objective reading of prehistory in terms of mathematical exactitude but as I have tried to point out Newtonian physics is one of many ways of looking at the world, there are other viewpoints, perhaps they are all correct or contain grains of truth about them. So I leap to no absolute conclusions one way or the other.
But I decry Hutton's imprecise use of the word cardinal. The length of this thread measures the irritation Hutton's linguistic imprecision stirs within me.
Many thanks,
Ric
Profile
Email
Reply
|
megalith6
Joined:
28-10-2001
Messages: 154
from London UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 23-11-2012 at 03:33
Quote:
|
On 2012-11-22 17:23, Orpbit wrote:
Unfortunately Stellarium has serious errors the further back in time that you take it ... after completing the most accurate panorama for Stellarium that I can, I will try SNP - or I should say "again" because I couldn't get a dummy horizon to work on my version (6.4.3). I would welcome a dialogue with anyone here who's tried on this version of SNP and succeeded. However, I don't want to hijack this particular thread on solar alignments so probably better off-line or start another thread (It's a bit technical anyway - and therefore somewhat boring to many!).
|
|
Dear Richard,
Please keep us all updated & informed. I will use the best there is in respect of viewing the virtual night sky & backwards into prehistory as it becomes available. I am confident that the theories I have advanced for the prehistoric watchers of the skies will be sounded out by the latest & subsequent technology, it is great stuff! 
Best thanks,
Ric
Profile
Email
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2708
OFF-Line
| Posted 23-11-2012 at 10:56
Ric , the northings on archaeological plans are notoriously wrong and not to be trusted , an obvious example is the plan for the passage at Newgrange in O 'Kelly's ( the excavator) book , it's something like 12 degrees out ,if we relied on that we would never have though it was aligned on the solstice . Nobody has ever suggested a specific orientation for the passages at Yarrow cairns possibly because they are ill defined , the best we can judge is from the RCAHMS surveys 8 years ago . e.g. “the history of its 'exploration' strongly suggests that the E end of the cairn was originally a free-standing chambered round cairn with its chamber and passage aligned ESE and WNW. Later this was extended to the W to form a long cairn, but the axis of the latter is at least 12 degrees to the S of that of the chamber and passage. “
“The visible remains of this cairn and the documentation that relates to the history of its 'exploration' strongly suggests that the E end of the cairn was originally a free-standing chambered round cairn with its chamber and passage aligned ENE and WSW. Later this cairn was extended to the WSW to form a long cairn, but the axis of the latter is at least 10 degrees to the N of that of the chamber and passage. “
Once again a rough guide for both but as I had mentioned previously about ESE and ENE these two directions are closer to to the solstice and the major and minor standstills than the equinox , not only would it be rash to make a judgement about the those three suggesting the equinox is a poor third choice . I am not challenged by your lack of exactitude and if you re-read the posts or read anything I have mentioned on the subject absolute precision even precision is not something we should necessarily expect in the builders but there comes a point when when we cannot conclude that a monument was oriented on one solar or lunar alignment when it is closer to another as in the case of the above and we must also accept that the builders could , if necessary accurately align monuments .
The Hutton quote "the vast majority of prehistoric monuments in these islands do not relate to...the cardinal points of the sun" is correct , no matter which definition we use for cardinal or even include both . Anyone seeing the data for the monuments and comparing with the either or both definitions of the cardinal points of the sun would have to agree .
George
Profile
Reply
|
cerrig
Joined:
25-09-2009
Messages: 918
from Brecon Beacons
OFF-Line
| Posted 23-11-2012 at 19:35
It seems to me that the key part of Mr Huttons statement is "relates to". If that fuzzy statement was cleared up things may be clearer for everyone. 
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2708
OFF-Line
| Posted 23-11-2012 at 20:50
I read it as somehing like "approximately aligned to". Any other suggestions ?
George
Quote:
|
On 2012-11-23 19:35, cerrig wrote:
It seems to me that the key part of Mr Huttons statement is "relates to". If that fuzzy statement was cleared up things may be clearer for everyone.
|
|
Profile
Reply
|
megalith6
Joined:
28-10-2001
Messages: 154
from London UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 24-11-2012 at 23:32
Quote:
|
On 2012-11-23 10:56, tiompan wrote:
The Hutton quote "the vast majority of prehistoric monuments in these islands do not relate to...the cardinal points of the sun" is correct , no matter which definition we use for cardinal or even include both . Anyone seeing the data for the monuments and comparing with the either or both definitions of the cardinal points of the sun would have to agree . |
|
Cerrig also described Hutton's archeoastronomical descriptions as "fuzzy" with which I concur & which takes us full circle back to my opening post at Page 1 of this thread.
George's comments on the orientation of the South Yarrows cairns are extremely helpful, & my thanks. This is information that I did not possess. My plans for these cairns were from the 'Chambered Tombs of Scotland' by A.S. Henshall (1963) & I had no reason to doubt their accuracy. This being the case, the axis of both long mounds still orients due east & as George has pointed out although I have never disputed it, the megalithic builders were capable of great accuracy thus I will be guided by their easterly axis towards the equinox, the sunrise and the symbolic opening of the year in spring. Google Earth also shows the axis for these two long monuments broadly facing cardinal east. As to the precise orientation of the cairns I don't know, it doesn't sound like anybody does? Be that as it may be, I will still be guided by the overall orientation of these long barrow-like monuments, which is in the general direction of cardinal east.
Now to George's defense of Hutton's statement. Let me begin by paraphrasing Hutton but focusing on his salient words which I quote, from 'The Stations of the Sun', page 5 ~
'It's evident that in the British & Irish prehistoric period that at certain places & times "the cardinal points of the sun" & notably "the winter solstice" were of profound significance ritually'.
Thus, 'The Cardinal Points of the Sun'. What are these please? They are not the cardinal directions NSEW because Hutton invokes the winter solstice whose rising & setting sun does not coincide with any cardinal direction of the compass, why should it? Who argues that it does? So what do Hutton's 'Cardinal Points of the Sun' refer to and how do his 'Stations of the Sun' relate to his 'Cardinal Points of the Sun'? I'd love to know.
Perhaps we could have a forum poll on these questions because, as I started this thread, I'd quite like to receive a wide range of thoughts here please?
Thanks to all 
Ric
Profile
Email
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2708
OFF-Line
| Posted 25-11-2012 at 19:28
Ric ,
In cases of alignments at passage graves like Newgrange , Knowth , Yarrows etc it is the orientation of the passages allowing light to enter that matter not the alignmnet of the cairn . The South Yarrows cairns passages , as noted in the Canmore links are different from the orientation of the cairns and are further away from the equinox and are thus closer to other solar or lunar astro events . An obvious example of this problem is Belas Knap http://www.stone-circles.org.uk/stone/belasknap.htm . The surrounding mound at Belas Knap is about 10 degrees from true north but the passages being transverse to the alignment of the cairn are closer to being equinoctially aligned . The introduction of a further quote from Hutton doesn't change things that much . I had mentioned a few posts back that it doesn't matter which definition of cardinal we take or include both , NSE&W plus the solstices that's eight points and he is still correct .
George
Profile
Reply
|
Orpbit
Joined:
24-06-2012
Messages: 10
from Shropshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 25-11-2012 at 23:53
Quote:
|
On 2012-11-23 10:56, tiompan wrote:
Ric , the northings on archaeological plans are notoriously wrong and not to be trusted |
|
Victor Reijs recently put together an information page about "True North" on his website:
http://www.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/northarrow.htm#True_North
All Alexander Thom's survey plans are strictly "True North".
Most current plans are "Grid North", but this shouldn't be assumed even though likely to be so. Many older archeaological plans were "Magnetic North".
Richard
Profile
Reply
|
Orpbit
Joined:
24-06-2012
Messages: 10
from Shropshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 26-11-2012 at 00:01
Quote:
|
On 2012-11-24 23:32, megalith6 wrote:
Thus, 'The Cardinal Points of the Sun'. What are these please? They are not the cardinal directions NSEW because Hutton invokes the winter solstice whose rising & setting sun does not coincide with any cardinal direction of the compass, why should it? Who argues that it does? So what do Hutton's 'Cardinal Points of the Sun' refer to and how do his 'Stations of the Sun' relate to his 'Cardinal Points of the Sun'? I'd love to know.
|
|
I don't know Hutton's context as I haven't read his book but I have to assume it's calendrical year positions of the Sun, as the book is about the "ritual year".
In astronomy the term "Cardinal Points of the Sun" refers to the orientation of the Sun as observed, for example between sunrise and sunset. They are the actual NESW points on the Sun and their angles change, being exactly N and S when on the meridian.
So if you take photos of Sun events such as flares, they will appear oriented differently on images depending on time of day taken.
I found this site which explains this in relation to telescope mountings:
http://www.petermeadows.com/html/parallactic.html
Richard
Profile
Reply
|
megalith6
Joined:
28-10-2001
Messages: 154
from London UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 26-11-2012 at 02:10
Quote:
|
On 2012-11-26 00:01, Orpbit wrote:
In astronomy the term "Cardinal Points of the Sun" refers to the orientation of the Sun as observed, for example between sunrise and sunset. They are the actual NESW points on the Sun and their angles change, being exactly N and S when on the meridian.
So if you take photos of Sun events such as flares, they will appear oriented differently on images depending on time of day taken.
I found this site which explains this in relation to telescope mountings:
http://www.petermeadows.com/html/parallactic.html
|
|
Thanks Richard,
That the sun possess NSEW is sensible enough but I fail entirely to understand how this ties in with Hutton's statement that "the cardinal points of the sun" are not related to the majority of prehistoric monuments in Britain and Ireland.
If he were to say that many prehistoric monuments do not seem to be directly oriented on the sun's rising or setting, I could understand that, that makes sense, since some circles seem to reference the moon and quite a few cairns orient due north. But why should such an observation make actual reference to the cardinal compass directions of the sun itself? Would this have concerned the megalith builders I wonder, since Hutton is referring directly to "prehistoric monuments" here?
I think I should, and with respect, open this question to the forum now:-
What does Ronald Hutton mean by "the cardinal points of the sun" please?
Bests,
Ric
Profile
Email
Reply
| |
|
|
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