Head To Head
Log In
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
John Michell lecture
Log In to post a reply

353 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
5758 posts

Edited May 06, 2016, 14:00
Re: John Michell lecture
May 06, 2016, 13:45
The correct grid ref for Men an Tol which can be derived from large scale maps and Google Eartth shows that the Michell grid ref is out by 29 yards .Whilst this doesn't compare with the error found for Stone 4 which is out by 1146 yards it doesn't impact on the other errors of a different type ,i.e. those related to the alignment which is not based on the grid ref but on the actual position of the points on the line . If we used his grid refs it wouldd have been a total waste of time .
He couldn't have seen the boundary stone from Men an Tol as it is unsighted from the monument .Further , what has not been mentioned about this type of "alignment " as it is old hat but doesn't appear to have been appreciated is that on p 14 of TOLSOLE Michell says" still ,to avoid controversey ,in the following example of aligned sites in West penwith the only monumnets considewred are menhirs , stone circles and dolmens " the boundary stone ,one of many in the area , and like other stones in the text never considered prehistoric is used as a potential example of a site .
Of course he got the grid ref for the stone wrong too ,being 66 yards out in this case.
The wrong grid refs were not the main point , they are just another example of dodgy methodology that I had never seen reference to . It was the claim , based on Lockyer's earlier work (Lockyer never mentioned the b.s. ) that the alignment between the two was 66.5 degrees , that is what is wrong .
The other components of the"ley" don't fit into the "menhirs , stone circles and dolmens" grouping either ,one is hilariously a "round field " .what we have is a failed attempt to put some more meat on Lockyer's earlier work .
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index