|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge Y&Z holes evidence of farming calendar |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
tiompan 5758 posts |
Nov 28, 2014, 20:00
|
||
|
Dave , interesting that you mention Yemen . Harriet Nash did a PhD on the star calendars of neighbouring Oman , and the Yemen itself does a have a similar tradition , no suggestion of a connection with anything prehistoric though . The Y and Z holes were not only dated from RC dating but also stratigraphically , they cut into post holes and the ramps of two sarsen stones .The irregularity of the circles suggests that the stones were in the way of a scribing . The absence of ZH 8 stone 8 had fallen and was in the way is another reason for the later date . Apart from the other problems there is also the possibility that Stonehenge was not built by arable farmers and throughout the period of it’s build and use arable farming was not the main means of subsistence . The past decade has seen an increase in a number of studies showing that cereals were not as successful as we once believed and there was a long period when they went of use . evidence for querns and ard marks for the period are missing but are found earlier and later , as are dental caries which are associated with a cereal diet .Isotope analysis shows a higher meat protein content than later diets .Fewer cereal impression on pottery from the period is another indicator . various cultures have been known to have started cereal cultivation then abandoned it for centuries before returning to it much later .Chris Stevens and Dorian Fuller did an interesting paper on it . I’ll send it .
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Nov 29, 2014, 08:56
|
||
|
https://sites.google.com/site/originsofstonehenge/home/original-purpose-of-the-stonehenge-site (if the link does not work just copy it into the address bar) [/quote] Dave ,had a look at the detail on one of the sites , Blakeley Raise . The site does seem to have problems .Thom says “There is a strong local tradition that this is a bogus monument “ . Pastscape has a comment “At NY 06011403 is a Stone Circle re-erected by Dr Quine of Frizington in 1925. Originally it stood in the "in-field" (cultivated land) of Standing Stones Farm but in the 18th c. was removed by the farmer, who used the stones for gate-posts. Whether all the re-erected stones come from the original circle is not certain, but from my knowledge of Dr Quine and his methods, it is quite doubtful.” However it doesn’t really matter as far as the marking the solstices from the site are concerned . It is a good example of the problem of ignoring the horizon and assuming that the sunrise occurs at the same bearing as would be noted by photographic or astronomy guides for that latitude .In this case you had 133 degrees for midwinter solstice rise which would be close if the horizon was flat but it isn’t ,Blakeley Raise rises in front of the monument creating an altitude of 7 degrees meaning that the sun isn’t seen to rise at 133 but is actually closer to 145 degrees . The rise at 133 would be seen at 9th November and 2nd February quite a difference from the solstice .The Midsummer direction is only out by a couple of degrees as the horizon isn’t nearly so high and therefore nearer what might be expected for the latitude . I’ll send a spreadsheet with the data . Also problematic is that without some form of indication towqrds the astro events , there is no suggestion of intention , it may as well be a phone box or sheep pen.
|
|||
Monganaut 2382 posts |
Nov 29, 2014, 10:57
|
||
|
I thought the current thinking on SH was it was a place of the dead and the ancestors. Not sure they'd stick 'the farmers daily' in amongst all that 'dread & dead'. If your looking for farming alignments/ arrangements, surely better looking towards woodhenge or Durrington Walls or the like. Take your pick at Woodhenge really, It would be difficult not to find an alignment to something there. Fascinating what you were saying about farmng in Yemen, do you think it was always so? That the peeps of the region had no use for 'solar calanders' so didn't build them. I guess when you have a predictable weather pattern, give or take a week or two, you most important resorce wouldbe water, flooding or irrigation. Ashamed to say, other than the later periods, don't know anything about the prehistory of the region. The only thing you can say about the UK is that freak weather is the norm, and I guess it must have always been so. Found a web page somewhere that went through historical journals, almanacs, church records and the like and put together a potted history of our weather going back to almost the 10th century. Truth be told, wasn't that different to what we've experienced weatherwise over the last century or so. Well except those mini ice ages around the 14th century. Up unti the end of the Bronze Age, I was led to believe that it was generally a warmer, more stable period weatherwise (hence farming and habitation on Dartmoor, Exmoor, Bodmn and other higher regions), so maybe farming was more predictable and productive, and life a little easier. All to do with Stadial and interstadial 'ice age epochs' or something. I mean even today, if you consider the latitude we inhabit, cos' of the Gulf Stream we have it a lot easier than say Russia, Sweden, Mongolia, Denmark, Germany, Canada etc... to name a fraction of the countries around the 49th parallel. I guess freak weather is the payoff for our relatively mild climate, and that may have informed the type of monument/calanders built. I've lost my train of thought somwhere there, but can't be arsed to edit it, sorry :)
|
|||
|
Dave1982 83 posts |
Nov 30, 2014, 13:43
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: https://sites.google.com/site/originsofstonehenge/home/original-purpose-of-the-stonehenge-site (if the link does not work just copy it into the address bar) Dave ,had a look at the detail on one of the sites , Blakeley Raise . The site does seem to have problems .Thom says “There is a strong local tradition that this is a bogus monument “ . Pastscape has a comment “At NY 06011403 is a Stone Circle re-erected by Dr Quine of Frizington in 1925. Originally it stood in the "in-field" (cultivated land) of Standing Stones Farm but in the 18th c. was removed by the farmer, who used the stones for gate-posts. Whether all the re-erected stones come from the original circle is not certain, but from my knowledge of Dr Quine and his methods, it is quite doubtful.” However it doesn’t really matter as far as the marking the solstices from the site are concerned . It is a good example of the problem of ignoring the horizon and assuming that the sunrise occurs at the same bearing as would be noted by photographic or astronomy guides for that latitude .In this case you had 133 degrees for midwinter solstice rise which would be close if the horizon was flat but it isn’t ,Blakeley Raise rises in front of the monument creating an altitude of 7 degrees meaning that the sun isn’t seen to rise at 133 but is actually closer to 145 degrees . The rise at 133 would be seen at 9th November and 2nd February quite a difference from the solstice .The Midsummer direction is only out by a couple of degrees as the horizon isn’t nearly so high and therefore nearer what might be expected for the latitude . I’ll send a spreadsheet with the data . Also problematic is that without some form of indication towqrds the astro events , there is no suggestion of intention , it may as well be a phone box or sheep pen.[/quote] Hi Tiompan Thank you for the info on the horizon’s elevation effect on the sunrise position for Blakeley Raise. I was aware of this problem but have no way of calculating or referring to a source of info for an accurate bearing. I was surprised at difference it made at Blakeley Raise and in consequence have removed this structure from my web site. I did have doubts about it as the midsummer sunrise stone is well off the arc, and I did notice adverse comments regarding Dr Quine's methods of reconstruction. (e.g. setting the stones in concrete ! ) Perhaps at this point it would be sensible for me to leave the forum on this subject and check my diagrams, as well as finding more convincing arcs for stronger evidence. I also want to research Neolithic farming for a need for a farming calendar - inc. the Stevens and Fuller report 2012 which you kindly sent me. I wonder if I could coax you into letting me have the source of your stats which take the elevation of the horizon into account for the observable position of the sunrise - for which I would be truly indebted to you for ! Thank you again for your interest and analysis which is greatly appreciated.
|
|||
|
Dave1982 83 posts |
Nov 30, 2014, 14:04
|
||
|
Hi Monganaut No, I don’t think the Sarsen stone structure was anything to do with farming and I go along with current thinking, such as Mike Pearson’s theory. From what I saw when I was in the Yemen mountains near Taz in 1966, I suspect that was the life style the people had led for many generations. It was fully sustainable and they seemed quite happy with their lot in life. No real need for change, or invention. Britain does have a temperate climate – no extremes of temperature as Germany and France have. But our weather is famous, or perhaps, notorious for it changeable nature, and un-predictability. Your train of thought seem ok to me, quite good actually. : )
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Nov 30, 2014, 16:03
|
||
|
Dave , No need to leave the forum . Please keep discussing . The most important point about calculating sun or rise events on the horizon at a particular date i.e. solstices , is declination . This involves latitude , the altitiude of the horizon , bearing of the event and if felt necessary for extreme accuracy ,refraction . It's all formulaic . A good introduction to the various formulae is Alexander Thom's "Megalithic Sites in Britain " .As an example the formula for the alt for an observer C to horizon point D is h = H/c-c(1-2k)/2R ,where H = height of D above C c= distance froof D from C R=radius of curvature of the spheroid , k= coefficient of refraction . You don't have to have any knowledge or ability in math when working with formulae and it soon becomes second nature . Even if Blakeley Raise is not a genuine monument the more such controls are looked at the better .They are usually omitted in a rush towards confirmation bias .It was a partcularly good example of the problems with the horizon , that's why I mentioned it . The problem often goes unnoticed in monuments that are surrounded by relatively flat or horizons of similar height .
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Nov 30, 2014, 16:35
|
||
|
Dave , this site saves a bit of time http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/altitudes.html . All that is missing is refraction but that is the least important component which , when included would produce the alt. as opposed to the apparent alt. ,as above .
|
|||
|
Dave1982 83 posts |
Nov 30, 2014, 21:12
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Dave , this site saves a bit of time http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/altitudes.html . All that is missing is refraction but that is the least important component which , when included would produce the alt. as opposed to the apparent alt. ,as above . Hi Tiompan Many thanks for the info - it is the declination of the sun after horizon sunrise ( defined in degrees from North ) related to altitude of the observed horizon ( such as an annoying hill that is in the way ) that I need so will go carefully through the info to find it. : ) I managed to master three dimensional calculus in Applied Physics, 1982, so I’m sure I can manage this - although I am getting a bit old now ! : ) Dave1982
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Nov 30, 2014, 22:23
|
||
|
Dave , the declination of the sunrise at the winter solstice sunrise around 2500 bc is - 24 and summer solstice sunrise is +24 . It is when the combination of latitude , altitude, azimuth of the event , combine to produce via the formula for declination ,a declination of +or 24 we know that we have a alignment that would would work for the solstice of the period . Today , because of the change in obliquity the declination would be closer to + or - 23 .5 .
|
|||
|
Monganaut 2382 posts |
Dec 01, 2014, 04:23
|
||
Ta!. wasn't very well thougt out, but got there in the end:)
|
| Pages: 3 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
