On 2012-09-02 23:38, tiompan wrote:
They vast majority of megalithic monuments are not aligned on celtic calendrical events . Could you give examples of these Becon monuments and their orientations ?
George
[quote]


Cerrig Duon circle; early November/Feb midday.
Nant Tarw circle; early May/August sunrise
Banneau Brycheiniog circle; Summer solstice sunset.
Bwllch y Cerrig Duon barrow; Equinox sunrise/set.
Maen Llia; winter/ summer solstice sunrise/set. Equinox sunset. Early may/August sunrise. Tomorrow sunrise/set (not sure of calendrical significance for this one). Major/minor northern lunar standstills. North celestial pole.
Hafen stone pair; Summer solstice sunrise/set, winter solstice sunset. Early may/august midday.

These are some that I have been studying for several years now. There are others, not definitely confirmed as yet ( confirmed to myself that is) What I am finding is that these are multi use sites. The calender is only part of the story.
The circles seem to be related to different dates, as if each was used at a particular time of year, and then the focus shifted to the next circle, in a kind of tour through the seasons.
There don't seem to be any passageway aligned dates as such, except possibly with the circles(evidence largely destroyed now) it seems that gnomons and shadows was the preferred, but not the only, local method.

Cerrig

On 2012-09-03 08:51, cerrig wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-09-02 23:38, tiompan wrote: They vast majority of megalithic monuments are not aligned on celtic calendrical events . Could you give examples of these Becon monuments and their orientations ? George [quote] Cerrig Duon circle; early November/Feb midday. Nant Tarw circle; early May/August sunrise Banneau Brycheiniog circle; Summer solstice sunset. Bwllch y Cerrig Duon barrow; Equinox sunrise/set. Maen Llia; winter/ summer solstice sunrise/set. Equinox sunset. Early may/August sunrise. Tomorrow sunrise/set (not sure of calendrical significance for this one). Major/minor northern lunar standstills. North celestial pole. Hafen stone pair; Summer solstice sunrise/set, winter solstice sunset. Early may/august midday. These are some that I have been studying for several years now. There are others, not definitely confirmed as yet ( confirmed to myself that is) What I am finding is that these are multi use sites. The calender is only part of the story. The circles seem to be related to different dates, as if each was used at a particular time of year, and then the focus shifted to the next circle, in a kind of tour through the seasons. There don't seem to be any passageway aligned dates as such, except possibly with the circles(evidence largely destroyed now) it seems that gnomons and shadows was the preferred, but not the only, local method. Cerrig

On 2012-09-03 19:36, cerrig wrote:
I have posted photographic evidence on the variouse site pages to verify some of these dates. Nant Tarw and Banneau Brycheiniog apart.
In the case of Cerrig Duon circle it is the outlier Maen Mawr that provides the date with it's midday shadow.
This is also the method with Nant Tarw and it's nearby stone row, but no photo for that one yet.
Banneau Brycheiniog is actually a semi circle with a collapsed slab like structure in it's South Eastern "corner". By looking through the centre line of this structure and the circle the setting middsummer sun can be seen. The flat base of the semi circle lies at 90degrees to this line.
Bwllch y Cerrig Duon barrow is the pivotal point for the Equinox observances. It provides the backsite, and to the East the twin peaks of the central Beacons the foresight for the Equinox sunrise. To the West the peak of Twr y Fan Foel is the foresight for the sunset.
Hafen stone pair are aligned on the winter solstice sunset in one direction, and the summer solstice sunrise is framed by them in the other direction. Summer solstice sunset is sited along the edge of the southern stone as it sets over Y Gamrhiw cairns to the North East. The changing shadows on the stones give the precise time of local noon, and the dates of early May and early August, Celtic calender dates.

Maen Llia is the backsite, and there are definite foresite features on the horizon for Summer/ Winter solstice sunrise, Equinox sunset, early May/August sunset. There may be more but I haven't determined them yet. There are also dates marked out by the stones shadow itself, and the stones northern face is angled such that sunrises after early may illuminate it, and sunsets after early Feb likewise.

Cerrig

On 2012-09-03 20:54, tiompan wrote:
A quick response on a couple of the sites . In the case of Maen Llia you mentioned what amounts to about 14 alignments .The stone itself is set N-S which in itself is not calendrical but does mean that the angled section does point to Polaris and the other I remember you suggested the angle of the stone pointed to the the noon equinox sun ,these are interesting but not calendrical . The calendrical alignments are aligned on featureless hillsides and there is nothing to indicate the orientation to these hillsides . Simply seeing an astronomical event from a site does not mean it is aligned on the event there has to be some sort of convincing indication . Thom may have had his notches (often shown to be wrong ) but he had other indicating features . The Bwllch y Cerrig Duon barrow to the Twr y Fan Foel point is simply a possible barrow to a peak at equinox , that does not constitute an alignment ,once again there is no indication ,even if the barrow is genuine it's not as if it's orientation is aligned on the peak .Please do not take this personally , it is not only my opinion but what I believe would be the response of most archaeoastronomers .

George

[quote]I don't take your comments personally George, I realise you are testing the observations, so don't concern yourself with that. I welcome your comments. I don't want anyone to agree with me unless they honestly believe in my conclusions, what would be the point. Fire away.

I would say that Maen Llia being aligned N/S is as solar as you can get, just the same as any other sundial. It's alignment to the equinox midday sun is surely calendrical, as it gives a date to that alignment, and it would do the same for a full moon around the time of the equinox too. Not especially accurate, but a good check none the less.
There are horizon markers for both solstices and the equinox!

The barrow is the backsite for both sunrise and sunset on the equinox. If it was anywhere else it wouldn't work.

The Hafen stone pair use no horizon markers or sights of any kind, but they can tell you several calender dates accurately using just shadows.

Cerrig

On 2012-09-03 23:10, cerrig wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-09-03 20:54, tiompan wrote: A quick response on a couple of the sites . In the case of Maen Llia you mentioned what amounts to about 14 alignments .The stone itself is set N-S which in itself is not calendrical but does mean that the angled section does point to Polaris and the other I remember you suggested the angle of the stone pointed to the the noon equinox sun ,these are interesting but not calendrical . The calendrical alignments are aligned on featureless hillsides and there is nothing to indicate the orientation to these hillsides . Simply seeing an astronomical event from a site does not mean it is aligned on the event there has to be some sort of convincing indication . Thom may have had his notches (often shown to be wrong ) but he had other indicating features . The Bwllch y Cerrig Duon barrow to the Twr y Fan Foel point is simply a possible barrow to a peak at equinox , that does not constitute an alignment ,once again there is no indication ,even if the barrow is genuine it's not as if it's orientation is aligned on the peak .Please do not take this personally , it is not only my opinion but what I believe would be the response of most archaeoastronomers . George [quote]I don't take your comments personally George, I realise you are testing the observations, so don't concern yourself with that. I welcome your comments. I don't want anyone to agree with me unless they honestly believe in my conclusions, what would be the point. Fire away. I would say that Maen Llia being aligned N/S is as solar as you can get, just the same as any other sundial. It's alignment to the equinox midday sun is surely calendrical, as it gives a date to that alignment, and it would do the same for a full moon around the time of the equinox too. Not especially accurate, but a good check none the less. There are horizon markers for both solstices and the equinox! The barrow is the backsite for both sunrise and sunset on the equinox. If it was anywhere else it wouldn't work. The Hafen stone pair use no horizon markers or sights of any kind, but they can tell you several calender dates accurately using just shadows. Cerrig

On 2012-09-04 09:10, jonm wrote:
Hi Geroge. The more I look into it, the more it seems that there's a lot of professional weight behind alignment theories.

Here's archaeologist Tim Daws of Stonehenge giving a link to astronomer Clive Ruggles's Royal Astronomical Society Stonehenge Factsheet (& citation copy). Clive describes, on behalf of the Royal Astronomical Society, how Stonehenge and other monuments were used for astronomy. Some, but not all, of the language is unequivocal and unqualified:

Tim's website (& citation copy)

Clive Ruggles seems to have a lot of influence and Martin also cited him as the expert worth talking to. Is he the UK's primary expert on investigations relating to Stonehenge and its use as an observatory?

On 2012-09-04 09:50, cerrig wrote:
The Winter solstice horizon marker is a ruined cairn (unverified) next to a dip.
The Summer solstice likewise is a small pile of stones, possibly a ruined and robbed cairn, but unconvincingly so. Also next to a dip.
The Major northern lunar standstill is an upright stone. It may be a standing stone or possibly a natural outcrop.
The Minor Northern lunar standstill is a ruined cairn(unverified)

The Equinox sunset marker is a natural rock outcrop, home to a ruined stone built livestock pen .

With the exception of the Equinox marker, none of these are noteable in themselves, but they are readily identifiable by someone who is, or was, familiar with the site.

As with BCD barrow, by siting over the top of the backsite towards the horizon markers, the dates are easily, and accurately, determined. The use of a third inline marker, although confirming a sightline, is totally unneccessary. You just need to stand in the right place, and look in the right direction.

Cerrig

Yes Ruggles is the main man if haven't read his " Astronomy in Prehsitoric Britain and Ireland " (1999) you are in for a treat . He was by some as doing a hatchet job on Thom but somebody had to do it , he cleared the air but we went from "astronomer priests & neolithis geniuses " and everything aligned to the other extreme .I'm not so sure he would describe Stonehenge as an observatory .

On 2012-09-04 18:28, tiompan wrote:
My point is that two points do not an alignment make . I imagine what you did at Maen Lloa was to see where the sun rose and set then went to see what was there . If these spots had been noticeable from the stone they would have been commented upon . For the moon I doubt you did see the minor or major extremes and therefore calculated these spots , what if you got it wrong would these noticeble to you spots be come less imporatnt and others found to replace them ? . You might not need another marker to see the equinox but an archaeoastonomer would , to even start to consider whether there might have been some intentionality in the alignment .
George

On 2012-09-04 19:27, jonm wrote:

Quote:

Yes Ruggles is the main man if haven't read his " Astronomy in Prehsitoric Britain and Ireland " (1999) you are in for a treat . He was by some as doing a hatchet job on Thom but somebody had to do it , he cleared the air but we went from "astronomer priests & neolithis geniuses " and everything aligned to the other extreme .I'm not so sure he would describe Stonehenge as an observatory .

Thanks George. I haven't read it unfortunately. I read a few books on astro-archaeology, formed an opinion and didn't read any more.

I thought that these phrases were fairly definitive though:

"Most archaeologists believe that we should view astronomical connections at great temples such as Stonehenge in a similar light".

The “midsummer sunrise” alignment at Stonehenge is one of the most famous manifestations of ancient astronomy in the world.

Whereas we can be sure that Stonehenge related directly to the Sun, [accompanying diagram shows how it related astronomically to the Sun] its possible associations with the Moon remain much debated.

Wouldn't it be rather difficult to argue that this paper does not infer that Stonehenge is an astronomical observatory? What do you know that I don't? (I'm missing something)

Thanks again!


Jon

Jon ,I don't see how any of these comments suggest that Stonehenge should be considered an observatory . Take Newgrange , nobody doubts the solstice alignmnet but until the recent solstice visits it was a sealed monument not ideal for observation .Observation would have had to have been one before the build but noty necessarily after

On 2012-09-04 20:00, cerrig wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-09-04 18:28, tiompan wrote: My point is that two points do not an alignment make . I imagine what you did at Maen Lloa was to see where the sun rose and set then went to see what was there . If these spots had been noticeable from the stone they would have been commented upon . For the moon I doubt you did see the minor or major extremes and therefore calculated these spots , what if you got it wrong would these noticeble to you spots be come less imporatnt and others found to replace them ? . You might not need another marker to see the equinox but an archaeoastonomer would , to even start to consider whether there might have been some intentionality in the alignment . George

I understand your misgivings about this George, and I wish there was this "necessary" third marker to satisfy modern standards, but as I said, and believe, there is no absolute need for it. I think that a pair of eyes, a backsite, a foresight and the sun/moon are enough points to line up. Another one doesn't make it more authentic, and the supposed lack of one doesn't mean the alignment is not genuine, although I can see why it wouldn't hurt when it comes to sharing the issue with others.
And like I have already stated, the horizon markers are noticeable, and they are being commented on , now, by me. The reason that they haven't been noticed before is because nobody has looked at them before.

As for BCD barrow, the twin peaks of the central beacons are separated by a semi circular dip. As seen from BCD, this dip appears to be the same size as the sun/moon (1/2 degree) This is because the distance separating the peaks and the barrow is exactly right for this illusion to work. Any closer and the dip would be too large, any further away and it would be too small. It fits perfectly. The angle of view also has to be correct, as going north or south and the circular shape is lost. And the sun rises through this dip at the Equinox. A better or more accurate alignment isn't possible, with absolutely no need for any other sight's.
Add to this that the sun can be seen to set 3 times , on the same day, from the same spot, over the highest point of the Black mountain range, after rising that morning over the highest point of the central beacons, and you have intentionality and the illusive stone age genius to go with it. You could stick as many stones in the ground as you like and it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference. They would be wasted.

Archaeoastronomers may need more, but they are the ones who are missing these things, and as far as I can make out, Ancient man wasn't aware of these modern day rules , and he/she didn't abide by them ( because they weren't necessary)

Cerrig

On 2012-09-04 20:26, sem wrote:
Hello George
In your reply to Cerrig you make the point that if the "spots had been noticeable from the stone they would have been commented upon". It doesn't work like that in South Wales. Many of these "spots" involve long walks over difficult terrain to look at what appear to be insignificant piles of stones, most of which would not reveal anything of archaeological importance - they are piled on bedrock and rain would destroy anything organic. Thus we are in an archaeo/archaeoastronomical backwater.
Also " My point is that two points do not an alignment make". In the flatlands of "Wessex" I agree. But, when you have two mountain ridges a few miles apart, maybe involving going down 1000ft and then back up again from one to the other, single points become more important. Cerrig's idea of the "U" of the Brecon Beacons took me a while to accept but a single point on a continous horizon is a persuasive concept.
For the past few years I have been pursuing "suspicious lumps and bumps on the horizon" (without your and Cerrig's expertise with a theodolite) and I currently have 5 unknown cairns to be submitted to RCAHMW.
Keep up the good work (and the sheep)
Sem

On 2012-09-03 08:51, cerrig wrote:



Maen Llia; winter/ summer solstice sunrise/set. Equinox sunset. Early may/August sunrise. Tomorrow sunrise/set (not sure of calendrical significance for this one).

On 2012-09-04 22:19, rogeralbin wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-09-03 08:51, cerrig wrote: Maen Llia; winter/ summer solstice sunrise/set. Equinox sunset. Early may/August sunrise. Tomorrow sunrise/set (not sure of calendrical significance for this one).

Would the full Moonrise of Halloween work for 6 months from the April Sunrise which must match the 04 Sept Sunrise puzzling you?
Rog.