Ancient and ArchaeologyΜύ permalink
Ancient Geodesy? Avebury and Newgrange.
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by J Jacobs (U9505276) on Sunday, 26th August 2007
Geodesy is the area of study encompassing measure and representation of the earth, surveying, place determination, point positioning, navigation on land or water, and geodynamic phenomena. Generally, current archaeological paradigms do not consider that this science was extant in prehistory. New evidence may require reconsideration of that viewpoint.
Consider these findings. Two major monument complexes, Avebury and Newgrange, are situated at one one-hundreth of earth's circumference apart. At Avebury, when obliquity equaled precisely 24 degrees, the level summer solstice sunset pointed precisely to Newgrange. And, the monuments align to the highest point in Europe, Mont Blanc. There is more here:
The empirical evidence is either a remarkable set of coincidences or reconsideration of the possibility of ancient geodesy is in order. -
Message 2
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 27th August 2007
The 'empirical' evidence cited on the referenced website is derived using some very 'unempirical' techniques, all of which - I notice - tend to favour the subjective view of the researcher. The 'circumference of the earth' for example is itself rather a large variable, given that the figure is contingent on which route one takes around the globe. The earth is not perfectly spherical. Furthermore, once one has given oneself the freedom to dismiss inconsistencies as irrelevant at the outset, then one's deductions themselves based on the resultant 'calculations' must acquire some of the same quality, and should definitely not be presented as 'empirical'.
Having said that, there is the matter of relativity. What, for example, besides an imperfect calculation produced by the author, has a henge in remote western Europe got to do with an Egyptian pyramid, separated as both are not only by geography (not, incidentally 'exactly' one tenth of the earth's circumference), but by a span of centuries in their establishment and by their quite different applications by quite different cultures?
Finally it is worth pointing out that AePolis has extended rather cheekily the definition of geodesy. His opening sentence up to the first comma coincides with the dictionary definition, but the rest does not, and steers the meaning from one of objective measurement to subjective interpretation of measurement. People who take such dishonest liberties with semantic convention are capapble of distorting anything. And it seems, this has been no exception. -
Message 3
Posted by J Jacobs (U9505276) on Monday, 17th September 2007
You comment, "The 'empirical' evidence ... is derived using some very 'unempirical' techniques ..." Actually, spherical and ellipsoidal trigonometry are accepted mathematics. Empirical, as an adjective or adverb refers to use of testable hypotheses, as opposed to semi-empirical or purely deductive 'ab initio' methods. Empirical quantities are computed from observed values.
You also comment, "the 'circumference of the earth' for example is itself rather a large variable ... The earth is not perfectly spherical." I can only assume you meant to say: degrees of arc distance vary according to placement on an ellipsoid. This fact is fundamental geodesy and the modern science of geodesy accounts for the earth's form, as do the geodetic methods reported in the linked web site. The study's determinations of arc distance are geodetic angular amounts, unquestionably empirical observations. Your assertion is unfounded.
You ask, "What ... has a henge in remote western Europe got to do with an Egyptian pyramid...." Here, you are the one moving beyond empirical evidence into interpretation, and correctly perceive a question the evidence poses.
Finally, you state that "the definition of geodesy" in the post does not accord with your dictionary and "steers the meaning from one of objective measurement to subjective interpretation of measurement...." The post states what geodetic study encompasses. Why attack that as subjective interpretation when it is true? If anything, the list is incomplete by generalizing areas of study.
To employ some words YOU wrote, once one has given oneself the freedom to ignore facts and insert irrelevancies at the outset, then one's opinions acquire some of the same quality, and should definitely not be presented as true. People who take such liberties with semantic convention are capable of distorting anything.
I hope any further discussion can focus on empirical facts rather than irrelevant interjections. -
Message 4
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 17th September 2007
Well stop making them, then.
-
Message 5
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 18th September 2007
Whilst ancient builders often took great care to align things like sunsets, and stars with their monuments, I'm cynical about "proof" such as this:
And, the monuments align to the highest point in Europe, Mont Blanc.Μύ
because, it's so easy to pick two monuments, then draw a line to find something which could be given significance. Coincidence often plays a more important role than people expect. For instance, Birmingham's Bullring, Brighton's Royal Pavilion and Rouen Cathedral are all on a single axis. What does that proove? Absolutely nothing other than there are enough points of interest in the world that it's difficult not to have this sort of conincidence.
OK, Avebury and Newgrange might align, but why don't Castlerig and Stonehenge align with Mont Blanc? Unless the alignment applies to the overwhelming majority of the monuments, it's unlikely to be intentional in my view. -
Message 6
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 18th September 2007
Newgrange, moreover, is only one of a complex of such passage graves dotted around the Irish landscape. It has a high profile, but not because it was necessarily the largest or most important of its kind, but out and out because it was the one that survived both in its relict state and in local memory with regard to function the longest, allowing it to be excavated, reconstructed and theorised about more readily than its peers (and there is MUCH controversy raging about all three). The article the OP refers to here itself refers to the others - Knowth and Dowth - in the vicinity of Newgrange which share almost as high a profile. But others exist, and many more existed. Recent excavations in Monaghan revealed not only traces of a comparable structure to Newgrange (but which would have been five times larger) but traces also of a surrounding infrastructure of roads, standing stone arrays and possible other passage grave sites that would, if the guessology involved in reconstructing it is correct, have put Newgrange in the shade both architecturally and in terms of likely social function. But that's not on the "line" mentioned (because the guy who wrote the article didn't know about it). Out of interest however I got out the atlas and played a little with a ruler myself and found that the Monaghan site sits plum on a line that includes Timbuctu, the ancient Zimbabwe fort and Cork Opera House. Even more amazingly, if you add the height of the Opera House to the estimated height of the passage grave mound you get a figure that must have been exactly one five hundredth the height of Mont Blanc at some point in the post-glaciation period (since only a fool would take the height of a mountain over millennia as a constant).
As you can see cloudyj I take all this stuff very seriously! (And when I hear that the earth is ellipsoid I can't help but take it even more seriously - not! The earth is neither a true sphere nor a true ellipsoid. The premise upon which the poster above - and/or he whose website is cited above - pretends to calculate anything is faulty.) -
Message 7
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Tuesday, 18th September 2007
Ahh Cloudyj
Thats where your wrong!!!!
The Bull ring, The royal Pavillion, Rouen Cathedral. All in alignment!
Clear proof that the Catholic church was infiltrated by the followers of Mithras and that the Royal family , in minotaur mode, are the secret leaders of the world.
Nordmann, in his capacity as head of security for the Mithratic church is ridiculing it to deflect the readers of the board from making the obvious connection.
The truth will out!!!!
ohh and can someone scratch my nose? These straight jackets have some draw backs. -
Message 8
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 18th September 2007
Hi cloudyj,
To be fair, on most maps Castlerigg and Stonehenge can be connected by a straight line.
Aside from this I agree with you completely!
TP -
Message 9
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 18th September 2007
Nordmann, BTTDP, OK, you've convinced me. I had another look and how about this:
You can draw a straight line between the Grave Creek Mound in Moundsville, West Virginia, (the highest mound built by the Moundbuilder culture), to Silbury Hill, England's equivalent mound and Yding Skovhoj, the highest mountain in Denmark. "So what?" some will cry, but here's proof of a connection. Silbury hill is flat topped, but if you calculate the height to where the peak should have been prior to the removal of the top (probably), it is roughly the height of the Grave Creek Mound multiplied by Pi! And, if that wasn't enough, if you multiply by Pi again, you get the height of Yding Skovhoj.
The Mound building culture of the US was inscribing in its circular monuments the secrets of ancient geometry. Even more conclusive if you take the volume of the mounds, multiply by 3, divide by the radius twice and also the height, the mound builders leave you with the ratio Pi exactly! Following the trail of mounds, leads one from the latest (and smallest) from West Virginia, to England and thence Denmark clearly demonstartaing the Mound Builders knowledge of the links to their ancestral homelands. And don't even get me started on Mound Builder wooden henge monuments. And these people build animal shaped mounds which are clearly derived from the horses of English hillsides. -
Message 10
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 18th September 2007
To be fair, on most maps Castlerigg and Stonehenge can be connected by a straight line.Μύ
D'oh, you're right. My mistake, I'd used a banana not a ruler to check that one. -
Message 11
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 18th September 2007
Don't discount the banana. Geodeists swear by them.
-
Message 12
Posted by J Jacobs (U9505276) on Tuesday, 18th September 2007
You correctly note "Newgrange ... is only one of a complex of such passage graves." I checked the relationship of these with the applet provided in the website. Knowth and Newgrange align to Avebury, hence, interestingly, two of the three passage mounds at the Newgrange complex are on this empirical line.
You also write, "Out of interest however I got out the atlas and played a little with a ruler myself and found..." Here I assume you are being sarcastic (and did not need to look up the word geodesy after reading the first post). Surely you know enough geodesy and cartography to understand that maps are projections. A fundamental mistake of ley hunters like yourself is ignoring the fact that great circles on the ellipsoidal earth are not straight lines on all map projections. -
Message 13
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 18th September 2007
Geodeist humour, eh? Who'd have thunk it.
And what on earth were those eejits in Dowth up to, what? Going to all that trouble when they must have known they were way out of alignment! I mean, couldn't they have climbed up on the Knob of Knowth and checked out Mont Blanc or something? It's not like it's rocket science or anything! -
Message 14
Posted by J Jacobs (U9505276) on Tuesday, 18th September 2007
You wrote, "You can draw a straight line between the Grave Creek Mound in Moundsville, West Virginia, (the highest mound built by the Moundbuilder culture), to Silbury Hill, England's equivalent mound..." Why not Newark Octagon, the largest earthwork, and Mont Blanc?
Of course, it makes greater sense, given accepted anthropological paradigms, to determine the relationship of the two largest mounds on the British Isle. I cite the following, as reported by the same archaeologist in a linked reading (the author's shorthand "cir" represents circumference, the site name shorthand has apparent meaning):
-----
FROM: Thornborough Henges and the Ure-Swale Monuments
Assessing Evidence of Geospatial Intelligence in the Neolithic
Silbury Hill and Marlborough Mound
Two largest mounds in Europe
silhi - marmo arc = cir/4800
silhi - marmo long E-W = cir/3000
-----
Empirically, not only does Avebury Henge straddle the latitude equaling one-seventh of circumference, but the complex is also at the latitude where the ratio of equal arc distances of latitude and longitude is 8:5. These two "largest mounds in Europe" are very near due East-West of each other (as are the two largest menhirs in the British Isles). -
Message 15
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 18th September 2007
And?
-
Message 16
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 19th September 2007
Why not Newark Octagon, the largest earthwork, and Mont Blanc?Μύ
Indeed, why not? That's my point. If you look for coincidences you find them. I have no doubt whatsoever that the moundbuilding cultures in Britain and North America had naff all to do with one another, but their monuments do line up. Why? Because there are statistically enough of them that it's almost impossible to not find three which line up.
Of course, it makes greater sense, given accepted anthropological paradigms, to determine the relationship of the two largest mounds on the British Isle.Μύ
I have little doubt that some of the monuments in Wiltshire are aligned with some of the others. After all they went to reasonable effort to align them with the sun and stars, so why wouldn't they align a new henge with the nearby old one?
What I do question is what this has to do with a natural feature a thousand miles away? Mont Blanc lines up with all sorts of other monuments. I suspect, if I could be bothered, that it would be trivial to line it up with two shopping malls in Poland, but that doesn't mean we should read anything into the fact.
Empirically, not only does Avebury Henge straddle the latitude equaling one-seventh of circumference,Μύ
As Nordmann says..."and?"
Empirically the great monument at Carnac doesn't lie at a latitude of 1/7 of the earth's circumference. How did they get it so wrong when the Avebury henge builders go it so right? After all, if Avebury aligns with Mont Blanc, then surely the hengemakers of Carnac would have known about the significance of 1/7th ratio? The boring truth is that Avebury was built at 1/7th of the cuircumference of the earth because the area is fertile farming land which attracted people who subsequently decided to build a local henge.
Seriously, any theory which takes account of one monument and ignores the fact that the same culture built hundreds of monuments which don't fit the theory has to be a little suspect. -
Message 17
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 19th September 2007
Even if every single ancient site could be mathematically proven to have been situated with a regard to every other ancient site, or the earth's circumference, or the position of the Dog Star, or the height of a mountain somewhere, or the distance between Nelson's Column and the Widgeridoo Sheep Farm in New South Wales - so what?
What exactly is all this codology meant to signify?
And what on earth has it to do with historical discussion? Can the original poster please get to his point? -
Message 18
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 19th September 2007
Perhaps the ones that dont line up are decoys?
Erected to confuse matters and distract the gulible.
Or may be they all line up with the Black Swan on Fleet street?
Or, and in my opinion much more likely they are all remnants of the various history bars from this and other dimensions that have dropped through from parallel universes.
Or, the "old ones" had a thing for cirlces mounds and standing stones and just liked the look of the place with them? there may have been itinerent tribes of mystery builders wandering the land sidling up to cheiftains and going
" Nice view squire. Know what you need to improve that? A nice stone circle on the hill top. Brian! the sample book!" and so on. There current ancestors wander round trying to flog you double glazing and decking. -
Message 19
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 19th September 2007
Hi AePolis,
You are probably totally frustrated by the lack of enthusiasm shown by posters for your theory. A lack of enthusiasm shown by someone who, in my case at least, has only the most tenuous knowledge of spherical geometry.
The serious point is surely to avoid the fallacy of retrodiction. In other words not to scrutinize the siting of ancient monuments for every conceivable pattern, and then identify one apparent relationship and claim it could never have happened by chance.
The same fallacy used to be encountered in the work of those who felt important prophecies were enshrined in the dimensions of the Great Pyramid or encoded in the words of the Bible. As well as being misleading such an approach trivializes the creative capacity of prehistoric builders, or the perfectly genuine insights into the human condition of the writers of scripture.
Sorry, but why not join some of the other discussions involving other aspects of archaeology as well?
TP -
Message 20
Posted by J Jacobs (U9505276) on Wednesday, 19th September 2007
TwinProbe wrote, "You are probably totally frustrated by the lack of enthusiasm shown by posters for your theory." No. I have not presented a theory or hypotheses (a better choice of terms). I'm evaluating how people react to these ideas, of course. I'm finding the comments to range from ridiculous to poorly-informed to completely false. While this is disappointing, it is expected in this medium. This is anything but a post-graduate seminar.
For example, Nordmann wrote "what on earth has it to do with historical discussion. Can the original poster please get to his point?" I thought this was an "Ancient and Archaeology" board. And the point is made in the original post, "The empirical evidence is either a remarkable set of coincidences or reconsideration of the possibility of ancient geodesy is in order." I have not even ventured my own interpretation, just some empirical evidence this one archaeology website presents. I find it interesting how people react, especially how they err, rationalize, and twist logic to support existing ideas when faced with new evidence.
You also wrote, "... why not join some of the other discussions involving other aspects of archaeology as well?" I made my first post looking for intelligent discourse. If I have any disappointment, it would be in not finding it here. So I'll probably look elsewhere. -
Message 21
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 19th September 2007
I have not even ventured my own interpretation
Μύ
Well perhaps it's time you did, or else you are simply drawing attention to coincidence and inviting the underwhelmed reaction you seemingly don't appreciate. -
Message 22
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 19th September 2007
I made my first post looking for intelligent discourse. If I have any disappointment, it would be in not finding it here.Μύ
Sorry, but perhaps you could explain how my comments have not been intelligent? Admittedly, I'm a professional scientist and only an amateur historian. Now maybe the rules are different, but in science, if you have a theory and large amounts of data don't fit the theory then the theory is wrong and the data which does fit the theory is considered conincidence.
The website you reference looks at a limited set of data and hints at a conclusion, i.e. that the builders of Avebury were part of a civilization capable of aligning large monuments over very large distances, and across at least two stretches of sea. To do that, they'd require (i) line of sight which means a set of anchored barges in the channel and Irish sea and large numbers of people holding sticks all the way from Mont Blanc to New Grange, or (ii) geopositioning satellites, or (iii) very complex mapping techniques. Other than a very limited set of alignments, there is no evidence to suggets that any of these cases is true.
Secondly, the link only looks at a limited set of results. If we accept that there is intentional alignment and the ability to do so, then how does one explain the fact that many, many other monuments do not show the alignment or selected latitude? Again, from a scientific viewpoint, one should be sceptical of any theory which explains so very, very few points of data whilst simultaneously failing when faced with the vast majority of data.
Now I can't 100% say that didn't happen, but my theory is that the alignment is mere coincidence. To support this, I've demonstrated that coincidental line ups are everywhere in geography. The coincidence theory does explain the alignment, it also expalians why other monuments do not align, i.e. it fits the data for all monuments.
Thirdly, intelligent discourse does not necessarily mean agreement. Again, from the scientific viewpoint, a decent theory is expected to withstand robust questioning. -
Message 23
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 19th September 2007
And have a proposer who is courteous enough to at least attempt to answer those questions.
-
Message 24
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Thursday, 20th September 2007
I am begining to wonder if Webplodder AKA Webtoes has changed his name?
Rabid theorys. Accusations of unscientific behaviour. I think an enquiry is called for at the least?
I'd have thought it was fairly obvious that if you have enough points on the worlds surface some of them are going to line up. It doesnt mean anything apart from there are a lot of sites.
Now if someone had asked how come so many of them line up on the sun and the moon at certain points of the year, and how and why a population which is supposed to have been much smaller than today could have given up so much time to construct them, at a point in history where the population is supposed to have been pretty much at the subsistance level of farming.
Then I'd be intrested. -
Message 25
Posted by J Jacobs (U9505276) on Monday, 15th October 2007
The new Ireland high-resolution aerial imagery is impressive in Google Earth.
FROM:
Google Earth has updated the aerial imagery for the Bend of the Boyne area. New coordinates ....
The three Boyne passage mounds have lunar minor alignments (within a few meters of accuracy) ....
Knowth tumulus is pictured in the following image:
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.