|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Uffington White Horse » uffington horse and the sun |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
moss 2897 posts |
Edited Aug 20, 2017, 11:14
Aug 20, 2017, 11:12
|
||
|
Rhiannon wrote: yeah cause this is my thread, right. And anyway - I see you haven't mentioned your thoughts on my Central Tenet, that of the Rhiannon Bird Horse hybrid. You read it here first. Pollard is going to be well jealous. ;) Did go and read Anne Ross on this though Rhiannon, and a merry dance it led me on. Sleipnir galloped in on his 8 legs but too late. The bird hybrid, peaky nose, was that the first unicorn I wondered, it is on the Gundestrup Cauldron for starters as a Gaulish symbolic illustration. And your bird/horse hybrid is perfectly legit. Though in the land of folklore and Rhiannon, the story of a stallion/mare hybrid leaves a lot to be desired in truth ;)
|
|||
|
thelonious 330 posts |
Aug 20, 2017, 12:32
|
||
|
Evergreen Dazed wrote: Ok, that's about as much as I can stand. I won't be posting here anymore. No flounce, no drama, I just simply won't be posting here anymore. I hope I'm reading this right ED and you are just talking about not posting on this thread anymore instead of the whole of TMA. Folk posting their different experiences, views and perspectives make this site what it is and it would be sad to see it lessened by people leaving.
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Aug 20, 2017, 14:17
|
||
|
From my first post on the original thread I quoted from the article " the horse appears to be galloping along the ridge in a westerly direction, toward the sunset." and pointed out how ridiculous the comment was , it is not galloping in westerly direct at all . My next post highlighted a quote from the paper “"When seen from the north, the views are straight along the back of the horse, from its tail to its head." No mention of appearances this time , and is suggesting the direction of travel is north- south not east west . Another quote “gives the impression of the figure following a broadly east–west route. “ , back to impressions again sadly it's wrong . Then there was the mention of a sun roll complete with a diagram showing the sun rise against a relatively flat hill top certainly not a “sun roll “. The title of the paper was “The Uffington White Horse geoglyph as sun-horse “ not only was there no sun symbol associated with the horse ,astonishingly it wasn't even aligned on any sunset , The designers could easily have pointed the horse at the very wide (approx 80 degrees ) western horizon where a sun set could be seen to set ,it's not much , but they didn't .What was more likely the reason for the siting was it's wide views from a distance , fitting in with the local topography , and possible association of nearby monuments . TSC first accepted that there was “nothing whatever to prove a link between the horse and the sun “ but then suggested that “for anyone viewing the horse from a position where its horsiness can actually be seen, the sunset will be to their right. “ that was also shown to be wrong .As is so often the case we find a splendid ancient monument tarted up to appear as something it isn't , however , it can be funny . Sometimes it is those who mess about with alignments , angles and measurements , finding relationships with the heavens , pyramids and other monuments .Both the metrology (which is nearly always circular reasoning) and astro stuff which involves relatively straightforward calc come up with stuff that it is to be expected or is simply wrong , in nearly in every case they are talking absolute bollocks .The only way to prove them wrong is to play their game . That was not the case with the article and paper ,there was no metrology or astro stuff. I can't be arsed any more . Bye .
|
|||
thesweetcheat 6218 posts |
Aug 20, 2017, 18:40
|
||
|
I agree with the sentiment here nigel. It's a subject I find fascinating, or I wouldn't have bothered at all. However I also agree with tjj, and have found any joy in this discussion has been replaced with something else. It's a shame, but this has not been a discussion, for all the number of posts. From my perspective (subjective and based entirely on how I persinally have experienced this thread) it has been a few hours of being told that I am wrong, that there is no room for alternative interpretation, that appearance counts for nothing when considering an ancient monument and that artistic intention counts for nothing when considering art. Over the last 20 years I've come to believe that appearance is extremely important in considering ancient monuments, but I accept that is a subjective viewpoint as well and others do not have to agree and can take a more empirical approach. Personally - again, subjective - I have found the tone of this thread to be dismissive and in places quite rude (not from tiompan particularly). As you know, I'm not really one for throwing toys and it would be greatly overstating it to say it's upset or offended me, it hasn't. It's only a discussion on the Internet, not real life. But it certainly isn't an enjoyable experience and you know what they say about gambling: when the fun stops, stop.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Aug 21, 2017, 05:58
|
||
But of course others have subjective experiences too and they may differ. Where does that get us? Assuming no-one here is a villain it must be a case of misunderstanding, with one person talking about one thing and another about another?
|
|||
tjj 3606 posts |
Edited Aug 21, 2017, 19:07
Aug 21, 2017, 08:14
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: But of course others have subjective experiences too and they may differ. Where does that get us? Assuming no-one here is a villain it must be a case of misunderstanding, with one person talking about one thing and another about another? I wasn't intending to say any more on this thread as to be honest have found the ultimate outcome upsetting. Tiompan and Evergreen have said goodbye and left the building - this seems like a massive over reaction. It feels to me this sort of response will always inhibit future discussions. Speaking just for myself I apologise to both of them for the use of the word 'dogmatic' in my own post - it was not the correct word to use. The discussion had focused entirely on the paper Josh Pollard had written and didn't seem to allow for a wider view or perspective on Uffington. When I said 'can I have it back now' I was speaking figuratively of course as so much more to the place than where the sun rises and sets. Most discussion threads allow for some level of digression. I hope they will both rethink their decision to leave. As you said Nigel, they have contributed so much.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Aug 21, 2017, 08:51
|
||
|
tjj wrote: I hope they will both rethink their decision to leave. As you said Nigel, they have contributed so much. As have you and TSC. Such a shame. I too hope they'll stay.
|
|||
|
Newling 1 posts |
Mar 22, 2018, 15:17
|
||
|
Hello. This is a message for Rhiannon. I have joined the site to ask you a question about a thread dating back to 2007. You posted a comment on 25th Feb 2007 re the PROLEEK PORTAL TOMB , and referred to " a very interesting Manuscript Volume of Tours by Thomas Stringer Esq MD of Shrewsbury". I have only found these tours serialised in The European Magazine and London Review of 1816. Can you tell me more please? Were they in book form? Where did you come across them? I hope you can remember that far back. Thankyou. Newling.
|
| Pages: 11 – [ Previous | 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
