Heavens' Henge

[hvered]

According to archaeologists, Stonehenge was originally a wooden structure (the mortice joints in the trilithons are generally cited). Stane and stone are the same would you say? Up north anyway.

[jon]

According to archaeologists, Stonehenge was originally a wooden structure (the mortice joints in the trilithons are generally cited). Stane and stone are the same would you say? Up north anyway.

Agreed, I'd be more inclined to go with stone and hinge. The production of tin was done by finding cassiterite (usually a black rock crystal) followed always by a washing and sorting process in a nearby stream or lake, so it's also possible that stone and tin were closely associated and that Boreades has a point? There are mining excavation records (I think I referred to that one in the book) showing that tin was almost certainly being extracted at the time Stonehenge was built.

It's also interesting that Arthurian legend refers to metal being removed from stone and also cites the source as a lake.

The possible Stonehenge connection with geocentrism seems to be a complementary concept to that of the Megalithic Empire: I don't know enough about the Empire's theory: Would you say that it is just complementary or is it more than that?

Thanks

Jon

[hvered]

The production of tin was done by finding cassiterite (usually a black rock crystal) followed always by a washing and sorting process in a nearby stream or lake, so it's also possible that stone and tin were closely associated and that Boreades has a point?

Absolutely he has a point, for instance the Stannary courts on Dartmoor follow the same root or route. The process of streaming seems to have been extensively used even in Victorian times but not only for tin, lead also and perhaps metal ores generally can be flushed out as it were?

There are mining excavation records (I think I referred to that one in the book) showing that tin was almost certainly being extracted at the time Stonehenge was built.

Stonehenge looks to me as if it was on a 'tin route'. There was mining (for lead mainly) in the Mendip Hills, if you follow the so-called Roman road (nowadays the B3135 I think) it goes south-east via Stoke St Michael (on the 'Michael Line') to Salisbury or Old Sarum from where the Avon river provides access to the south coast.

It's also interesting that Arthurian legend refers to metal being removed from stone and also cites the source as a lake.

Absolutely agree, there is an author called Andrew Gough who makes a connection between Arthur and Joseph of Arimathea based on their tin trading credentials! http://andrewgough.co.uk/landend2.html

The possible Stonehenge connection with geocentrism seems to be a complementary concept to that of the Megalithic Empire: I don't know enough about the Empire's theory: Would you say that it is just complementary or is it more than that?

Must stop agreeing with you, it's becoming a habit. The Megalithic Empire bases its whole argument on the capability of ancient navigators for which there is of course no concrete evidence (a Roman invention). I was just saying to Boreades that an eminent archaeologist has emailed some comments to the effect that prehistoric peoples didn't have the technology to map/ navigate wide distances. Prove him wrong!

[jon]

I was just saying to Boreades that an eminent archaeologist has emailed some comments to the effect that prehistoric peoples didn't have the technology to map/ navigate wide distances. Prove him wrong!

Depends on the terminology he used:

Navigation:
--Determining which direction to go in is easy and can be determined with very good accuracy
--Determining how far you have travelled is more difficult

Mapping:
--Locating your latitude is child's play and does not require sophisticated technology to get within half a degree accuracy (see examples in chapter 1). It's possible to map more accurately than this without good technology.
--Determining height above sea level is not particularly difficult near the coast (see examples in chapter 2)
--Locating your longitude is not particularly easy. It can be done if you have a knowledge of the stars, though it's not something I've looked at in any detail to see what accuracy could be achieved.

There does seem to be evidence that Neolithic peoples were able to navigate or map in some detail. However, showing the evidence for this has an ethical dilemma associated with it. The sites involved are mostly well known. However, the best logical reason (for the location of the known sites) predicts the location of one site which is unknown to the relevant heritage body.

If there is anything to the coincidences in my book, naming the location of this unknown site could lead to treasure hunters destroying the site before the authorities have had the opportunity to investigate. This site, if located according to the possible reasoning for the other sites, is the most important one of the lot. It also makes a brilliant finale for the book series, so at this stage it's not something I'm able to share.

(http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stonehenge-Solving-Neolithic-Universe-ebook/dp/B00A25VWYG/)

[hvered]

There are mining excavation records (I think I referred to that one in the book) showing that tin was almost certainly being extracted at the time Stonehenge was built.

The role of tin should be uppermost in people's minds though it seems Britain was operating on a near-industrial scale judging by the number of stone axes found. The flint mines of Grime's Graves near Brandon in Norfolk were huge and just to the north of Mildenhall and Thetford, situated on the Ridgeway (or 'Michael Line' if you prefer). This southwest - northeast route obviates the necessity of sailing past the notoriously dangerous Cornish peninsula, through the very difficult Channel and up the North Sea.

Depends on the terminology he used:

The archaeologist's argument hinges on an abstract problem, how to represent the surface of a sphere on a single plane, which to my mind is singularly obtuse since we are dealing with a preliterate culture.

[jon]

The archaeologist's argument hinges on an abstract problem, how to represent the surface of a sphere on a single plane, which to my mind is singularly obtuse since we are dealing with a preliterate culture.

It's difficult without seeing the argument.

From the point of view of a geocentric world, the earth is fixed and the heavens revolve. It's far easier to imagine your global location in three dimensions than trying to map it onto a plane. We only do it this way today because paper, as a method of communication, requires 3-D to be mapped onto two dimensions.

So in a 3D representation, described just using words and the imagination, someone at Stonehenge would describe themselves as living on a fixed ball at 6/56 of a 'world circle' from the North Pole (the point on Earth above which the heavens rotate) whereas the people at Giza could describe themselves as living on a fixed ball at 1/6 from the North Pole. This defines latitude and is really very easy to do.

Longitude is more difficult because it is arbitrary. Nevertheless, if you have a location such as Greenwich; somewhere that is generally accepted as being the 'zero line', you can define where you are relative to Greenwich's line (which goes around the globe) in the same way: Though the method you would use to find where you are is more complex than finding latitude.

Don't know if any of this is any help in what you're looking at.

Jon

[Boreades]

If we're insisting on map-based navigation, even if it's off the megalithic track. it's educational to read Ptolemy's Geography. That was written between the reigns of Hadrian and Antonine in the second century AD. It includes longitude and latitude coordinates for places in the British Isles. As far as I can tell, Ptolemy wasn't out and about with surveying equipment. He was a Greek living in Egypt, not a Roman in Britain, and he wrote his Geography at home in Alexandria.

But crucially his description had transposition errors, as shown here. That might mean Ptolemy was copying from an earlier source and cocked up part of the job, or maybe some of the source data was wrong. But a good part seems to have accurate-enough coordinates, So it's another mystery who did the measuring of lat & long, and how they did it. Mind you, the Greeks were adept as astronomical instruments, as the Anitkythera Mechanism so wonderfully demonstrates.

To go back beyond Ptolemy you're into a twylight zone where the older the maps the more accurate they seem to be. If you want a better explanation of that, see Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings by Charles Hapgood.

[Boreades]

Anyway, back to the question on navigation.

I think the person we need to speak to is Crichton Miller. He is a qualified yachtsman and navigator with an interest in ancient history and religions. Recently, he's proposed that the shape of the Celtic Cross is derived from its principal purpose, as a scientific instrument that can measure latitude and longitude to an accuracy of three arc minutes.

More here and here.

[Boreades]

Oh, forgot to say, he's proven it works well enough to get patents for it! :-)

[jon]

So it's another mystery who did the measuring of lat & long, and how they did it

Aye, quite true, but there's no mystery how they could have done it. I had a quick think about this one: Longitude isn't difficult to determine using natural materials provided you're on dry land, though at first sight I wouldn't expect to get better than about 0.2 degrees tolerance out of the really simple methods.