Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Change?
Log In to post a reply

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

Re: Change?
Feb 01, 2017, 21:03
Evergreen Dazed wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Evergreen Dazed wrote:
tiompan wrote:

The exceptions , i.e. the classic major monument examples , alone should be enough to alert us to an interest


An interest most definitely, a preoccupation with or major reason to build, i'd say no.

tiompan wrote:

There is the regional variation whereby some areas, at some point , choose a "quarter " to orient their monuments towards ,and this can change over time in the same area .


How do we know that had anything to do with the sky?


tiompan wrote:

What is clear though is that the vast majority face the part of the sky where the sun or moon will be seen sometime in the year . Admittedly that is a large percentage of the horizon , but the remaining percentage is much bigger than the tiny percentage of monuments that don't face the sun or moon .


But why such vagueness when we know they can get it* spot on when desired?

*are we to blame in deciding what is significant?

tiompan wrote:

There is also a significant percentage that face roughly east i.e. 60 - 120 degrees .



What does that indicate in terms of the sky?


Not sure how to deal with the visual aspect (of the text ) .

I agree about astronomy being far from primary or reason to build .
I doubt "observation " came into either for that matter .

We don't know for sure that the regional orientations had anything to do with astronomy . But there is a clue that suggests it is . When we look at all the regions, as there is the common denominator ,i.e.the vast majority face the part of the sky where the sun , in particular , can be seen at some point in the year . We can show that it wasn't related to the landscape or the horizon , peaks /troughs etc as within the same groupings the horizon can be quite different .It has always puzzled me how the direction of orientation can be maintained when the horizon and heavenly bodies will look different from monument to monument , yet the bearing will be the same . Any thoughts ?

My guess is that the vagueness is not inability , it's just not what matters and it probably is us wanting to wrap it up all up simply with the aligning to astro events, and when they don't, i.e. in the vast majority of cases just ignore it or think they somehow got it wrong .

I didn't understand "What does that indicate in terms of the sky?"



No problem. If you want to, you just put the 'quote with name' brackets bit before or above the text, and the /quote in brackets after or below. it then shows it as the named persons quote.
but not necessary and often a pain to keep copying/pasting.

I'm not sure I understand your question re maintaining orientation -
two LBs 5 miles apart, both facing east, first one aligned on the sun at a low horizon point, depending on the increase in horizon height as the sun moves, both could point to the equinox sunrise .
Have I got that right?
I'm sure thats not what you meant?

[/quote]

Yes your two LB'S would be aligned on the equinox ,and with the same orientation if the horizon for each was similar all that would be required of the builders, is to know when the equinox took place , a matter of counting of days from the solstice .
But despite the similarities you might only get get three or four close to that exact alignment ,and there is leeway , maybe about 30 degrees .
The counting of days , might explain some similar orientations , i.e. group A decides to orient their monuments on the rising sun 90 days after the winter solstice meanwhile elsewhere group B chooses 111 days .
It seems a bit odd/unlikely but it would work . But if the orientation is towards a part of the sky where the sun never rises or sets ,which is often the case ,and that quarter of the horizon could encompass 100 degrees or more then counting won't help .
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index