FourWinds
|
Re: More evidence?
Nov 24, 2004, 14:19
|
Yes compound errors are a concern, but sometimes two sightings won't do, say when there are ten hills in the way :-) Three poles were good enough for IKB, so they're good enough for me!
There are variations on the theme that leave the first pole in place and alternate the second two as long as you can. This does reduce compound errors somewhat.
Another way is to buy a feckin GPS! Take areading at all three sites and plot them on some graph paper. If you can draw a straight line through them then you're not doing too badly.
To be sure you need to apply lots of line-bending (and mind bending) maths to the points to get lines on the Earth's surface etc, but over very short distances this shouldn't be a major concern. Many people draw a line on a map with a permanent marker and say that sites beneath the scaled 400m wide line are in an alignment, so a little calc error isn't that important.
|
Rhiannon
|
Re: More evidence?
Nov 24, 2004, 14:35
|
Did they have graph paper in the Neolithic?
It seems logical (possibly) to line up things that are intervisible.. but things that are over hills? well I suppose you might want to.
Also a stone circle would be more Bronze Age, wouldn't it? Whereas Silbury and the Sanctuary are they not older? Not that you can't line things up that aren't contemporary of course.
Don't know what I'm getting at really, just I would feel cautious I suppose. And I'm waiting for the L word to come up probably.
|
Kammer
|
Re: More evidence?
Nov 24, 2004, 14:47
|
> I'm waiting for the L word to come up probably.
I love The L Word. Never miss an episode.
http://www.thelwordonline.com/main.shtml
On a slightly more serious note, I entirely agree with you Rhiannon. Lines of sight make sense, but if there's a bloody great hill in the way...
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: More evidence?
Nov 24, 2004, 15:36
|
"Lines of sight make sense, but if there's a bloody great hill in the way..."
Totally agree. Unless, of course, the alignment is astronomically derived, in which case a bloody great hill is of little consequence. Stars seem to have an inclination to rise above such things. ;o)
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: More evidence?
Nov 24, 2004, 16:21
|
"Another way is to buy a feckin GPS! Take areading at all three sites and plot them on some graph paper. If you can draw a straight line through them then you're not doing too badly."
I doubt whether prehistoric man had access to graph paper let alone GPS!
Talking about lining things up over hills, isn't it remarkable that the Egyptians managed to square the base of the Great Pyramid to within a few centimetres with a feckin great natural rock outcrop right in the middle, making it impossible to check the diagonals by direct measurement. I reckon they must have used radial distances from a pole on top of the hill on the basis that if each corner is the same distance from the top of the pole and all the sides are equal they must form a square. Actually it's the first time I've thought about this, but the method effectively constructs a "string" pyramid and that would be a fairly logical way to go about the task for somebody whose purpose is to build a pyramid.
|
FourWinds
|
Re: More evidence?
Nov 24, 2004, 17:10
|
|
The thing is that there may have been something on the hill that you don't know about.
|
StoneLifter
|
Re: More evidence?
Nov 24, 2004, 17:32
|
'L-lines' will be laughter lines, I guess. The archaeologists don't find much difficulty with the idea of spirit paths. There's talk of sacred geometry but the term superstitious geometry is more appropriate. Greek theorem one is 'the shortest distance, AB, between two points, A and B, is a straight line, A - B'. Avebury was probably laid out using huge triangles but they are far less obvious than the lines.
This Sanctuary to Silbury alignment will 'go live' on Monday, morning sometime, with the setting moon. So will other 'lunar observatories'. I should fillet out a list from Thom's data perhaps.
|
Hob
|
Re: More evidence?
Nov 24, 2004, 23:37
|
"superstitious geometry"
Nice turn of phrase.
|
StoneLifter
|
Re: More evidence?
Nov 25, 2004, 09:42
|
Thanks - I can reach most places in the S T valley but some are off-limits to me, due to the keepering. They'll not let me near their pigeon shed, for instance, but there are a couple of artificial hills, or extremely large cairns, up there. I have three very poor images only.
Of these Three Pikes just two are left the baby, with a drystone shooting butt on top, and the big one, which just looks like a hill. NY 632 524 (perhaps). There's a road most of the way now comprised of the medium-sized one crushed up. All SSSI (for the heather). The farmer (Angus) is fine
There's a roundhouse ruin also that I can't get to - with pictures of that it might be possible to find someone to excavate it. (Kirkhaugh and Knaredale parish was in Scotland between 1208 and 1256 so perhaps S. archaeologists). The ruin is untouched - a little mound in the middle that can only be decayed roof material - the stream beside it the 'Hut Burn'. (And so on).
|
Rhiannon
|
West Kennett enclosures
Nov 25, 2004, 13:57
|
Just thinking....
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/FileStore/archaeology/aerial_survey/NMP_Projects/Avebury/WestKennet500.gif
What about Silbaby in relation to these? By my reckoning it would be about a quarter of the way in at the top of the picture?
Has anyone read Whittle's 'Sacred Mound, Holy Rings'? I just wondered if that would have anything useful in, as it's about Silbury and the enclosures (and Silbaby being between the two...)
|
