Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Conclusions...Stone circles, are we learning much?
This topic is locked

253 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
tiompan
tiompan
5758 posts

Re: Conclusions...Stone circles, are we learning much?
Nov 05, 2013, 19:43
jonmor wrote:
"Phew , back to the decryption , sounds more like "Northand " or "handto " in Neolithic rhyming slang ?"

Haha. You must have seen the intro to the latest version of the book (or I missed the reference entirely): A bit different from Stonehenge this one. It is not even vaguely complex. To me it seems very obvious, especially with all the detailed drawings around the perimeter showing what to do. So I find myself wondering if I am imposing some of these development systems (which would lead directly to a "Stonehenge" being built) onto those monuments: It's a bit weird putting these ideas together and then finding that all of them seem to have been constructed.

If Stonehenge is engineering brilliance, then that other set is intellectual genius. If they're what I think they might be, then the whole set-up is so profound, simple, logical and obvious that future generations will look back with amazement; not at the interpretation, but at how long we took to work it out. But can it really be that obvious? I'm struggling with this so think I need the people who really know the place to take a look.



You'll have to spell it out Jon .
The engravings have been pored over and no one has noted anything apart from a possible connection with structural components , the astronomical , calendrical and representation are never consistent and easily refuted . As the same motifs are used elsewhere they provide a comparison . If you can show they represent one thing at one monument then checking against another could test the pudding .
George Eogan knows it well .
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index