| Author |
Solar alignments? |
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2708
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 03-01-2013 at 10:41
Thanks Jon , I was thinking more along the lines of specific examples of motifs fitting "explanatory sketch details already seem to exist in the kerbstones at Knowth " .
George
 Profile
 Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 827
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 03-01-2013 at 13:07
Hi George. Do you mind if we correspond privately about this when I've got a bit further along in the process? Still got the novel to write and it's a bit off-topic all this stuff.
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2708
OFF-Line
| Posted 03-01-2013 at 14:42
No prob/rush Jon.
george
Quote:
|
On 2013-01-03 13:07, jonm wrote:
Hi George. Do you mind if we correspond privately about this when I've got a bit further along in the process? Still got the novel to write and it's a bit off-topic all this stuff.
|
|
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 827
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-01-2013 at 12:58
Thanks George
These coincidences make a great background to the storyline, so I'm reluctant to chuck an early spoiler up if there's no direct benefit to anyone else in knowing what they are.
It's about what happens if a community's thinkers find a way to show that the widespread fears are groundless. It would be different if it were advanced astronomy or some great and complex secret knowledge, but that's not the storyline.
Profile
Reply
|
megalith6
Joined:
28-10-2001
Messages: 154
from London UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-01-2013 at 06:06
Quote:
|
On 2012-12-28 20:26, tiompan wrote: Ric , if you re-read “ what they didn't point out was that the winter solstice sunrise would rise above the monument as seen from the westernmost post hole “ you will notice it does not contradict "you wouldn't have seen the posts on the horizon" . To simplify the first comment is the view from the site of the posts to the monument .
If you also re-read the other comment about the posts “you wouldn't have seen the posts on the horizon unless they were much taller than expected from the depth of post hole “ you might then note it is not a case of just seeing the posts it seeing them on the horizon . The probable height of the posts is calculated from the depth of the post hole not it's width and thos works out at approx 3m , to reach the height of the horizon they would have had to have been over 7m .
You may not wish to argue semantics but it doesn't change the fact that the term formative henge is not applicable to what may or may not have happened at the Stonehenge site over four millenia before the first activity that we are aware of at the site .
Not sure what you are suggesting or meaning by “field work” ? . Are you finding yourself stuck indoors ? |
|
Not at all George, it was I who made the video.
Earlier you said, so I re-read it:-
"you wouldn't have seen the posts on the horizon"
Three metres, that's 9 feet. I doubt they were all 9 feet high George, and what about that *tree* - a good 20 feet I should say, 30, 40? But 9 feet poles with those massive girths the size of sailing masts, are you sure about 9 feet George, wouldn't 19 be nearere the mark?
Well then, what have we here: 'post holes that perhaps held 'totem poles' have been found, aligned east-to-west: they could have acted as equinox sighting markers'. Oh dear, not another solar alignment. What will Professor Hutton say? A Dr. Colin R. Shearing certainly seems to think these massive timbers were the height of totem poles -
http://www.britannia.com/history/preseli_blue.html
and from what I can discern your average totem pole stands some 70-80 feet in the air, well within sight of the proto-Stonehenge site then?
http://2vancouver.com/en/articles/totem-poles-in-vancouver-bc
Take care 
Ric
Profile
 Email
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2708
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-01-2013 at 10:19
Ric , why doubt that they were 3m tall ? , it may not suit your wishes but that is the likely height judged by the depth of the post hole . Anything taller and they would have become unstable .
A while ago you had said “I don't go a bundle on the 'totem pole' reading for the car park beams. “ . what has made you change your mind ? Colin Shearing sensibly prefaces the totem idea with the conditional “ possibly “ . What he fails to note is that they were not all standing at the same time so the “ alignment “ would never have existed and even if they were standing at the same time there would have been no alignment as they were off set , nobody has as yet mentioned Orion in relation to the posts afaik but it’s only a matter of time .
It doesn’t matter how tall the possible tree from the fourth hole /throw may have been it’s much too far north as seen from SH to form any solar or lunar "alignment" .
George
Profile
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 319
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-01-2013 at 16:55
When they tear down the present Visitor Center next year, I'm sure they'll do some pretty extensive archeology of the entire car-park site before returning it to grassland. Some of our questions concerning these mysterious posts will surely be answered.
I'm not sure where the guess of '9-feet' or '60/70 feet' tall come from, but more comprehensive investigation will show the girth, mass and compression ratios of these 'Totems', which will gives us much more conclusive information.
(We know the mass of Virgin-Heart Pine, and we know what it takes to compress chalk, ergo: a more accurate estimate of how tall the posts were.)
2012 saw a rapid revision of some pretty cherished concepts with regard to this area, both broad and specific, so I wouldn't be surprised to see even more 'enlightenment' in the coming year.
As George has said, it's unlikely that these (at least) 3 timbers were all standing at the same time, so whatever they were for, they were all placed more or less in this location for a reason. Seen as single standers, they were almost certainly Not Aligned to anything Astronomical.
Orion need not apply.
They may have marked the spot for the Bi-Annual Clan Gathering's Fish & Auroch Soire and Disaffected Wife-Swap - but who knows what shenanigans those pesky Down-Home Mesolithic Farm Boys with their filthy migratory ways were really up to.
This is all long before even the Cursus was built, with the area still at least lightly forested.
Regardless of the Pine Tree Particulars, my question has always been: Since, at that time, they couldn't see the Periglacial Striations under the woods, what was it about this vicinity that made it a Ritual Landscape for several thousand years before Stonehenge?
Neil
.
Profile
Email
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2708
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-01-2013 at 17:18
Neil , The usual calculation of post height from the depth of post hole is that the post hole depth is one third of the entire length of the post , the depth of the post holes in the car park were max 1.5m suggesting a height of 3m . Girth is much less important as the trunk could be very narrow and tall or wide and short ,it’s the depth that gives a better indication of height due to the stability factor .For the posts just to reach the level of the horizon they would have had to be 7.5 m high .
George
Profile
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 319
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 08-01-2013 at 06:04
Quote:
|
On 2013-01-07 17:18, tiompan wrote:
Neil , The usual calculation of post height from the depth of post hole is that the post hole depth is one third of the entire length of the post , the depth of the post holes in the car park were max 1.5m suggesting a height of 3m . Girth is much less important as the trunk could be very narrow and tall or wide and short ,it’s the depth that gives a better indication of height due to the stability factor .For the posts just to reach the level of the horizon they would have had to be 7.5 m high .
George
|
|
______________________
I understand how far down We would dig the pits, but as seen elsewhere, digging in chalk is a murderous pain. It may or may not be an accurate indicator. I would love to see to what extent they were chocked or packed.
Girth is a less important characteristic, yes, but I was thinking more in terms of mass x compression to determine height.
But, all said, 7.5 meters would still be a honking big pine-tree, topped and limbed notwithstanding.
Neil
.
Profile
Email
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 827
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 08-01-2013 at 08:46
The calculation is about right for ordinary soils. However, in chalk you can get much more stable constructions for a shorter lever arm. 7.5 out of a 1.5 socket is achievable to resist wind load in some circumstances (but there's little or no factor of safety)
The calculation only applies to free standing cantilevers. Where a structure is braced and reasonably squat (ie not multi-storey), a socket might only be required to get down to firm ground bearing strata.
Where the structure is braced, squat and lightweight, traditional foundations are often not required for stability reasons: We put them in today to prevent settlement (cracking) and not so much because the structure would fail if it wasn't done.
Profile
Reply
|
cerrig
Joined:
25-09-2009
Messages: 918
from Brecon Beacons
OFF-Line
| Posted 08-01-2013 at 09:24
Perhaps they were doing this
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=speed%20pole%20climbing&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CEAQtwIwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DMS6nR2p8WdY&ei=PuXrUNmQHOHC0QXZ3oCQBQ&usg=AFQjCNFDEHjxvz689KXcFYYZnNkTWm00oQ
Profile
Reply
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 08-01-2013 at 11:15
No it was Salisbury Golf and Caber tournament.
1 Mud Slips & Slides at Fort Nottingham Highland Games 20111medpipeband.co.za › News
The band encountered the muddy obstacle course laid out which included dodging holes created by the caber toss and rock carrying events and poles ...
Profile
Reply
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 2425
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 08-01-2013 at 12:48
There's a tribe in I think S America that climbs high poles then they "fly" from the top, attached to a leather rope. A bit like a non-elastic bungee.
Rune
Profile
Reply
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 08-01-2013 at 19:29
In south Pacific, French-British Vanuatu.
[Bungee has quite an old origin. The idea of this way of jumping comes from the ancient ritual "Gkol" performed in the Pentecost Island in the Pacific Archipelago of Vanuatu. The legend says that in the village Bunlap a man called Tamalie had a quarrel with his wife and she ran away and climbed a Banyan tree where she wrapped her ankles with liana vines. When Tamalie came up to her, the woman jumped from the tree and so did her husband not knowing what had his wife done. So he died but the woman survived. The men of Bunlap were very impressed by this performance and they began to practise such jumps in case they got in similar situation. This practice transformed into a ritual for rich yam harvest and also for proving manhood.
Modern bungee jumping as we know it today actually started on the 1st of April ( Fools' Day ) 1979 when group of people from the Oxford University Dangerous Sport Club, impressed by a film about "vine jumpers", jumped from 245-Clifton Suspension Bridge in Bristol, England. Using nylon braided, rubber shock cord instead of vines, and dressed in their customary top hat and tails, they performed a four man simultaneous jump .The enthusiasts promptly were arrested for this. ]
Profile
Reply
|
megalith6
Joined:
28-10-2001
Messages: 154
from London UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 09-02-2013 at 19:29
Yes well, don't forget there was also a blimmin great tree in the car park as well, easily sighted from where Stonehenge was ultimately plonked.
Meanwhile, another blow to the Hutton anti-solar, megalithic thesis, if one were needed:-
"This is the biggest collection of ancient rock art in this part of Scotland ... date[s] back 5000 years ...The rocks on Swordale Hill all align to where the sun and moon rises and sets in midwinter, which is no coincidence...People would carve these cupmarks into the rock at the times when the sun was coming up, out of what they believed was the underworld.”
http://news.stv.tv/highlands-islands/213064-archaeologist-uncovers-one-of-the-biggest-collections-of-rock-art/
Profile
Email
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2708
OFF-Line
| Posted 09-02-2013 at 20:03
Ric , What Hutton said is clearly true as a look over the past posts on that subject here will show .
The marked rocks on Swordale Hill and area were noted as long ago as 1864 by a Mr Joass and later in the same century by William Jolly .
If you want to play about with “alignments “ related to multiple markings on surfaces averaging 1.5 m x 1.5 m or even less then you find anything you like including the sunrise or sunset on your or your aunties birthday .The marked rocks in the Swordale area are no different to any others throughout the country in that regard .
George
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5599
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 09-02-2013 at 20:13
Welcome to the year of the serpents.
There is a standstill now.
cropredy
Profile
Reply
|
megalith6
Joined:
28-10-2001
Messages: 154
from London UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 11-02-2013 at 20:58
I respectfully think that Hutton is wrong because his understanding of megalithic monuments is partial and incomplete, therefore his thesis is wanting; and I think you are wrong as well.
George posted 26-12-2012 at 19:57:-
“The problem with a solstice sun set from Stonehnege is that ... you wouldn't have seen the posts on the horizon unless they were much taller than expected from the depth of post hole”
This line of colossal posts probably included a tree which has left a tree throw.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NmAFJML-Y2M/TkG6yQy9ZHI/AAAAAAAAAIM/300fhHPCa0A/s1600/stonhenge+carpark+holes.jpg
The pine posts were around 0.75 metres (2 ft 6 in) in diameter giving a girth of some 8 feet. Such a girth in Scots Pines - as an example - is generally maximal. Such mature trees can attain a height of between 65 to 90 feet.
http://www.treesforlife.org.uk/tfl.scpine.html
A tree of that height would be easily seen from where Stonehenge now stands.
Thus your statement to the effect that you wouldn't have seen car park uprights on the horizon, from the site which became Stonehenge, is I feel demonstrably wrong.
Ric
Profile
Email
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2708
OFF-Line
| Posted 11-02-2013 at 22:57
Quote:
|
On 2013-02-11 20:58, megalith6 wrote:
I respectfully think that Hutton is wrong because his understanding of megalithic monuments is partial and incomplete, therefore his thesis is wanting; and I think you are wrong as well.
George posted 26-12-2012 at 19:57:-
“The problem with a solstice sun set from Stonehnege is that ... you wouldn't have seen the posts on the horizon unless they were much taller than expected from the depth of post hole”
This line of colossal posts probably included a tree which has left a tree throw.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NmAFJML-Y2M/TkG6yQy9ZHI/AAAAAAAAAIM/300fhHPCa0A/s1600/stonhenge+carpark+holes.jpg
The pine posts were around 0.75 metres (2 ft 6 in) in diameter giving a girth of some 8 feet. Such a girth in Scots Pines - as an example - is generally maximal. Such mature trees can attain a height of between 65 to 90 feet.
http://www.treesforlife.org.uk/tfl.scpine.html
A tree of that height would be easily seen from where Stonehenge now stands.
Thus your statement to the effect that you wouldn't have seen car park uprights on the horizon, from the site which became Stonehenge, is I feel demonstrably wrong.
Ric
|
|
The Hutton comment "the vast majority of prehistoric monuments in these islands do not relate to ... the cardinal points of the sun" is true . We have been over this all before even endlessly picking apart what he meant by “cardinal points “ until it was shown from the horses mouth that it was exactly as we had thought from the beginning . His knowledge may as incomplete as yours and mine but the knowledge we have supports his statement .
It has also already been pointed out that the girth of a post in post hole is not how you estimate the height . It's the depth of the post hole .
It was also pointed out that the hole that may have been due to a tree throw which may well have been tall enough to form the horizon would be too far north as seen from the monument to have aligned with the solstice .
Not only was the tree millenia older than the monument it's getting desperate when trees are brought into the argument when everything else has ran out .
If you re-read my statement I specifically said posts , not tree and is thus not “demonstrably wrong “.
George
Profile
Reply
|
megalith6
Joined:
28-10-2001
Messages: 154
from London UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 22-04-2013 at 01:34
New findings re: Stonehenge!
“large wooden posts erected in the Mesolithic period, between 8500 and 7000BC”
http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/archive/2013/04/19/++News+-++Latest+Headlines/10366033.Stonehenge_used_thousands_of_years_earlier_than_thought/
Note the adjective 'large'
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Main News