Heavens' Henge

[jon]

Got a good review on the Megalithic Portal:

http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=2146414126



Overall I found this publication highly readable, being both informative and slightly controversial. A basic knowledge of the period would help the reader but most MegP devotees should have this. A basic knowledge of trigonometry would also help, but the book has enough illustrations (photographs, line drawings, diagrams and computer-aided pictures) to overcome the problem.

The author has obviously done a lot of research, but more importantly has put in a lot of leg-work visiting the sites mentioned in the book and has actually tried the experiments using only the materials available to megalithic peoples. When someone has done (or tried to do) something, you get an added depth to the experience and this certainly comes across in Jon’s writing. Page 11 has a marvellous example, when attempting to view the exact point on the horizon where the sun rises/sets. Even on a clear day this is often impossible due to the haze, something I also know through bitter experience.

The one thing that makes this book a winner is the fact that it’s central theory is not a house of cards. The various parts are not all required to prove that Stonehenge was a geocentric “planetarium” (or whatever the solar equivalent is) and equally you can accept all the parts but reject the final conclusion....

Highly recommended to anyone with an interest in Stonehenge.

Blatant plug (sorry)

[hvered]

Much more complimentary article than for TME -- and from the same reviewer (Sem). He doesn't take kindly to suggestions that unwritten history such as folk tales have any validity, nor do his readers presumably.

Part 3 relies heavily on folk tales, especially Irish and (Holy) Grail lore. For me this was the least interesting section and is actually superfluous to the main theory, luckily by Part 4 we are back on solid ground. Here Jon relies heavily on Professor Parker-Pearson and The Stonehenge Riverside Project’s “Stonehenge: Exploring the Greatest Stone Age Mystery” and English Heritage’s laser scan of the monument.

Isn't Parker-Pearson the one who came up with a theory about funeral rites and/or health centres?

[jon]

Isn't Parker-Pearson the one who came up with a theory about funeral rites and/or health centres?

Health centres is the Darvill-Wainwright theory from memory. I've never met Wainwright but Darvill is a nice chap. The funeral rites theory has been mentioned by quite a few people but people were buried in the vicinity so funeral rites must have taken place nearby: Pitts, Parker Pearson and others have associated Stonehenge with death.

Personally I think it's a bit of a stretch to associate death with a particular set of places: It seems to me that the places where bones are found are more likely to be associated with the lives of the people.

I have to admit that I was in half a mind as to whether or not to include the stuff on folklore (I was originally going to do a section on Avebury and maybe Thornborough instead). In the end, I thought that Avebury was too complex a concept so went with the folklore.

Jon

[hvered]

Health centres is the Darvill-Wainwright theory from memory. I've never met Wainwright but Darvill is a nice chap.

That's interesting, I sent a copy of the book to Darvill and he was kind enough to read it or some of it. From his reply however, it was clear he has a low opinion of the intellectual capabilities of the Stonehenge-builders as he informed me with absolute certainty that prehistoric people were simply not equipped to carry out large-scale surveys. Chanting songs, reciting poetry etc. would be the ways non-literate people navigated in his learned opinion.

He recommended walking between Avebury and Stonehenge (not in a straight line) in order to appreciate how insignificant these sites are in the overall landscape of Salisbury Plain. Still, he was very gracious.

[Mick Harper]

Biographers are often accused of falling in love with their subjects. Apparently any prolonged exposure tends to result in a rosier opinion. It is only academic pre-historians who seem to go through the opposite process: the more they study the Ancient Brits the lower their opinion of them.

Applied Epistemologists claim that this is because all academic pre-historians are trained in the Classical School which says, basically, everything starts with writing (ie history) and that therefore by definition pre-history is already beyond the pale. Imagine what a lifetime of being professionally burdened with this melancholy supposition must be like.

[Boreades]

Isn't Parker-Pearson the one who came up with a theory about funeral rites and/or health centres?

Yes, places like Westminster Abbey have got dead people buried in it. So it must be true. :lol:

[jon]

I sent a copy of the book to Darvill and he was kind enough to read it or some of it.

I think you did well to get a review! The only one who said he might be interested in the Stonehenge geocentric coincidences was Mike Parker Pearson, but he was writing a book at the time so couldn't devote time to it.

For me, the unusual thing is the speed at which different professions work: In engineering, you can write a paper and expect it to be reviewed and published quickly: I had one recently that went from submission to publication within 8 weeks (published this week). On the other hand, I submitted a paper for a learned archaeological journal about 9 months ago and only just got back their review comments. Ironically, the reviewer liked the new ideas in the paper but the main reason for rejecting it was that he/she thought that I wasn't up to date because I hadn't referenced Mike Parker Pearson's work (Stonehenge: Exploring the Greatest Stone Age Mystery, published 6 months ago).

Ironic because some of the new discoveries in MPP's work were partially predicted by the geocentric theory: I would have thought that the interesting thing for them would be that I, not being an archaeologist and *not* having access to MPP's book before it was published, could predict what they would find.

[Jools]

Isn't Parker-Pearson the one who came up with a theory about funeral rites and/or health centres?

Health centres is the Darvill-Wainwright theory from memory.

They say healing centres. Not health centres. To my mind the choice of words is telling, one indicates a well-run, organised 'business model' and the other implies a disingeuous hippie-style commune, NHS vs homeopathy.

[Royston]

Ironic because some of the new discoveries in MPP's work were partially predicted by the geocentric theory: I would have thought that the interesting thing for them would be that I, not being an archaeologist and *not* having access to MPP's book before it was published, could predict what they would find.

How annoying of you!

[Martin]

Using a pool as a device to measure stars' trajectories makes sense. But why on top of a hill which by definition is exposed to 'weather'? The surface of the pool would be unruffled in a sheltered spot.

If it was at sea level would that be more suitable, guaranteeing an absolutely level surface? Eratosthenes used a well apparently.

It is worth noting the number of tidal pools though whether they were used to "measure stars' trajectories" is debatable. Pools may have grown out of basins constructed for 'industrial' purposes much as quarry pits evolve into lakes. Tin streaming is a case in point; in full view of St Michael's Mount, a centre of tin trading, there are two pools, at Penzance (now the Jubilee Pool, built on top of a traditional swimming spot) and Tavis Vor headland at Mousehole, opposite St Clement's Island.