|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » City of Glasgow » Save Sighthill Stone Circle |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Jan 07, 2013, 20:29
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: One of the major problems in archaeoastronomy is that of intentionality i.e. it’s all very well noting a possible “alignment “ but was it the intention of the builders ?. The Sighthill circle presents a rare opportunity to discover the intentions of a builder and we discover that it was never the intention to align the circle with the The Univeristy of Glasgow Tower ,a prominent building to the west . The interesting thing is that from the circle at equinoxes the sun is seen to set over Creuch Hill 33 miles to the west but the Uni tower is bang on line . If this was a prehistoric circle and the Uni Tower a prominent standing stone or monument would anyone be convinced that the “alignment “ wasn’t intended? Great point Tiompan. I suppose then you look to see how many times an equinox alignment occurs in other monuments and if the number is greater than 'luck', it becomes significant or more likely to be intentional.
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Jan 07, 2013, 20:56
|
||
|
Evergreen Dazed wrote: tiompan wrote: One of the major problems in archaeoastronomy is that of intentionality i.e. it’s all very well noting a possible “alignment “ but was it the intention of the builders ?. The Sighthill circle presents a rare opportunity to discover the intentions of a builder and we discover that it was never the intention to align the circle with the The Univeristy of Glasgow Tower ,a prominent building to the west . The interesting thing is that from the circle at equinoxes the sun is seen to set over Creuch Hill 33 miles to the west but the Uni tower is bang on line . If this was a prehistoric circle and the Uni Tower a prominent standing stone or monument would anyone be convinced that the “alignment “ wasn’t intended? Great point Tiompan. I suppose then you look to see how many times an equinox alignment occurs in other monuments and if the number is greater than 'luck', it becomes significant or more likely to be intentional. Not sure I get your point ED . In this case it's what most people would accept as an alignment ,if we pretend that the circle and tower were prehistoric monumnets , but we know it was never intended . Alignments in general can be contentious ,then there is the added problem of intention , is the type of alignment found elsewhere in similar circumstances etc . If we were aware of Sighthill being a modern circle but didn't have the builders intentions then it would make sense to see the Uni alignment as being intended as that is the the sort of thing that late 20 th C punters believed happened at stone circles . Realistically , how many genuine stone circles have genuine alignments to equinoxes ? If it's a case of sighting from one stone to another then you can find anything you like particularly when the number of stones and diameter make it easy but archaeoastronomers don't accept that type of thinking .
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Edited Jan 07, 2013, 20:59
Jan 07, 2013, 20:58
|
||
|
I really do sympathise with you on this (having taken so much time and effort getting the project off the ground in the first place). I do disagree with you however when you say, “Graffiti is not a problem because the site is so exposed that it quickly weathers off. The Ancient Monuments Commission recommended against cleaning the stones because it’s better to let them build up a natural patina.” That certainly was not the case at Avebury some years ago when this occurred and conservators from Bristol University took several months removing the graffiti from the stones in question. Firstly, it really does depend on the type of paint (or other graphic materials used) whether or not it ‘quickly weathers off’. If it’s chalk then it’ll soon wash away. If it is an aerosol car spray then you have a very tough medium to contend with. Meanwhile, the paint might actually be inhibiting the build up of ‘natural patina’ (by that I assume the AMC mean lichen). All that pales into insignificance however because this site seems to be a classic example of the ‘broken window’ syndrome – ie things tick along nicely, even in neglected areas, until the first window in an unoccupied property gets smashed and then the snowball effect kicks in – ie before long all the windows are smashed. The choice seems to be a bit of a stark one – either save the circle or loose both it and the site. As with Seahenge (and it’s not perfect) I’d opt for the former.
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Jan 07, 2013, 22:50
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: tiompan wrote: One of the major problems in archaeoastronomy is that of intentionality i.e. it’s all very well noting a possible “alignment “ but was it the intention of the builders ?. The Sighthill circle presents a rare opportunity to discover the intentions of a builder and we discover that it was never the intention to align the circle with the The Univeristy of Glasgow Tower ,a prominent building to the west . The interesting thing is that from the circle at equinoxes the sun is seen to set over Creuch Hill 33 miles to the west but the Uni tower is bang on line . If this was a prehistoric circle and the Uni Tower a prominent standing stone or monument would anyone be convinced that the “alignment “ wasn’t intended? Great point Tiompan. I suppose then you look to see how many times an equinox alignment occurs in other monuments and if the number is greater than 'luck', it becomes significant or more likely to be intentional. Not sure I get your point ED . In this case it's what most people would accept as an alignment ,if we pretend that the circle and tower were prehistoric monumnets , but we know it was never intended . Alignments in general can be contentious ,then there is the added problem of intention , is the type of alignment found elsewhere in similar circumstances etc . If we were aware of Sighthill being a modern circle but didn't have the builders intentions then it would make sense to see the Uni alignment as being intended as that is the the sort of thing that late 20 th C punters believed happened at stone circles . Realistically , how many genuine stone circles have genuine alignments to equinoxes ? If it's a case of sighting from one stone to another then you can find anything you like particularly when the number of stones and diameter make it easy but archaeoastronomers don't accept that type of thinking . My point was that I agree that if the circle was prehistoric rather than modern and the uni tower a menhir, we would most likely be thinking it an intentional alignment on the equinox by the builders, and your post was highlighting that error, in order to say, essentially, don't be too hasty in presuming intention, even when there are seemingly intentional alignments as they may be coincidence. I was simply suggesting that surely we test intentionality in prehistoric sites (where we can't be certain from just one site) by seeing if other sites have the same characteristics, and if a number of sites share similar alignments (LBs east/west for example, or even better the Scottish recumbents with their S/SW emphasis) we can feel reasonably confident the alignments were intended.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Jan 07, 2013, 23:14
|
||
|
Evergreen Dazed wrote: tiompan wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: tiompan wrote: One of the major problems in archaeoastronomy is that of intentionality i.e. it’s all very well noting a possible “alignment “ but was it the intention of the builders ?. The Sighthill circle presents a rare opportunity to discover the intentions of a builder and we discover that it was never the intention to align the circle with the The Univeristy of Glasgow Tower ,a prominent building to the west . The interesting thing is that from the circle at equinoxes the sun is seen to set over Creuch Hill 33 miles to the west but the Uni tower is bang on line . If this was a prehistoric circle and the Uni Tower a prominent standing stone or monument would anyone be convinced that the “alignment “ wasn’t intended? Great point Tiompan. I suppose then you look to see how many times an equinox alignment occurs in other monuments and if the number is greater than 'luck', it becomes significant or more likely to be intentional. Not sure I get your point ED . In this case it's what most people would accept as an alignment ,if we pretend that the circle and tower were prehistoric monumnets , but we know it was never intended . Alignments in general can be contentious ,then there is the added problem of intention , is the type of alignment found elsewhere in similar circumstances etc . If we were aware of Sighthill being a modern circle but didn't have the builders intentions then it would make sense to see the Uni alignment as being intended as that is the the sort of thing that late 20 th C punters believed happened at stone circles . Realistically , how many genuine stone circles have genuine alignments to equinoxes ? If it's a case of sighting from one stone to another then you can find anything you like particularly when the number of stones and diameter make it easy but archaeoastronomers don't accept that type of thinking . My point was that I agree that if the circle was prehistoric rather than modern and the uni tower a menhir, we would most likely be thinking it an intentional alignment on the equinox by the builders, and your post was highlighting that error, in order to say, essentially, don't be too hasty in presuming intention, even when there are seemingly intentional alignments as they may be coincidence. I was simply suggesting that surely we test intentionality in prehistoric sites (where we can't be certain from just one site) by seeing if other sites have the same characteristics, and if a number of sites share similar alignments (LBs east/west for example, or even better the Scottish recumbents with their S/SW emphasis) we can feel reasonably confident the alignments were intended. Ahh , yes , totally agree . Cultural context is very important ,probably more so than precision . In the case of Sighthill an equinox alignment is more likely to found in a 20 th C stone circle than a prehistoric one because of the greater emphasis attributed to equinoxes by moderns than is found in prehistoric examples or in ethnography i.e. solstices are much more important to foraging communities in relation to calendars , feasting they are specific events whereas equinoxes are merely the midway point between these events easily calculable by counting (if you can be bothered , but who really cares about equal day and night ) but difficult to "see" .
|
|||
bladup 1986 posts |
Jan 07, 2013, 23:44
|
||
Yes, if the alignment is tradition the people may have lost the reason for it but still do it, we assume people using alignments knew why, they may not have, or it could have been a very broad "at the moon".
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Jan 07, 2013, 23:48
|
||
|
bladup wrote: Yes, if the alignment is tradition the people may have lost the reason for it but still do it, we assume people using alignments knew why, they may not have, or it could have been a very broad "at the moon". RSC 's are broad , in that they are not pinpointing "alignments " but a part of the sky where the full moon will be low at a particular time of year .
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Jan 08, 2013, 00:01
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: Yes, if the alignment is tradition the people may have lost the reason for it but still do it, we assume people using alignments knew why, they may not have, or it could have been a very broad "at the moon". RSC 's are broad , in that they are not pinpointing "alignments " but a part of the sky where the full moon will be low at a particular time of year . Yes that's what i meant by - a very broad "at the moon", I agree alignment tends to mean something less broad, as you know the land tends to give the view or the low horizon, so therefore alignments are as much about the lay of the land of a region as anything else.
|
|||
bauheed 896 posts |
Jan 18, 2013, 16:00
|
||
|
update on the campaign to save the Sighthill Stone Cirle on the Guardian website today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/scotland-blog/2013/jan/18/glasgow-sighthill-stones Thanks to everyone who signed the petition!
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Feb 13, 2013, 07:33
|
||
|
bauheed wrote: update on the campaign to save the Sighthill Stone Cirle on the Guardian website today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/scotland-blog/2013/jan/18/glasgow-sighthill-stones Thanks to everyone who signed the petition! Bit more here.
|
| Pages: 3 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
