Sunday, 13 May 2012

Stone Circle Secrets - Revealed

By Robert John Langdon

Stone circles have always been a mystery to archaeologists.  The fact that prehistoric man took such care, time and attention in building such monuments has lead them to believe that these structures are very important to this society - but sadly, don't have a clue why they were constructed!!

Typical Stone Circle


Many ideas from astronomical eclipse calculators, to meeting places for the lost souls of the dead have been suggested, all of which do not answered the most simplistic of sensible questions as - why not make it out of wood - which was easier to move and less physically taxing. For the Altanean/Cro-Magnons wantd theses objects to last a very, very long time.

Fortunately, the reasons for such constructions are, like most aspects of history, quite simple if you keep an open mind.  For even to day, we still use similar objects in our countryside to help us get around.

Modern Day Standing Stones
They are landscape 'sign posts' or as we call them today 'information boards' as seen here at the Devil's Dyke on the South Downs.  Now just consider, in 5,000 years time, how these information boards (illustrations missing of course) would look and how future archaeologists will consider there function.  Looking at the angle of the stone, would they not imagine that they are a 'star alignment' system??

So why have these 'navigation aids' and why not use maps instead?


We they probably had both (as we do today!) and these were used as a base to check not only direction but the season of the year.   It may sound strange to talk about not knowing what date of month it is currently, but to our ancestors days and weeks were far less important that the seasons as this was a 'nautical nation' and the season would reflect the expected wind and daylight available for journeys.  Especially if the Stone circle (as the one above) are placed by the sea, tracking marine routes to other islands and continents.

Consequently, additional (non-directional) stones would have been added to make the stone circle act like a seasonal sun dial, that could track the setting of the sun against the stone uprights.  The problem we have, like the archaeologists of the future with our own version of these 'navigational aids' is when the writing/drawings are gone - the meaning disappears.  An observation that supports this idea is that the stones of  Stone Circles have their 'flattest' face is facing the centre.

Was this because these were painted or carved with a 'relief' of the area?

Modern Bronze Relief Map - looks remarkably like a face of a stone upright

So why can't we see the relief markings today?

Of course our modern bronze version would last the rages of time better than stone - but they did not use Bronze, they could have also used wood, but that would have rotted in just 25 years.  But we do STILL have old stone markers around, to test how bad the deterioration would look.

Milestone in prime condition - its meaning is clear
A Roman milestone after 2000 years of erosion 

A Neolithic Standing Stone (Milestone) after 5000 years-  all carvings and paint are gone

The original Mesolithic Stone Circles of the Atlanteans/Cro-magnons - such as Stonehenge would have been built for this maritime society, and so should indicate the general direction of 'other' settlements in the vicinity.  As we have fully described in 'The Stonehenge Enigma', the three main 'round barrows' at Stonehenge are surrounded by moats and with direction stones at the top.  These are the Heel Stone, The Northern Station Stone and the Southern Station Stone, that point to 'Durrington Walls/Woodhenge, Avebury and Old Sarum respectively.

Stonehenge showing the Three Moated direction finders


Once the Direction was established, then the boats would follow the Mesolithic 'Long Barrow' pathway markers on the bank of raised water levels.  Later in the late Neolithic, when the waters receded new pathways to the same settlements could be reached overland for the first time and 'Round Barrow' markers with standing stones were used instead.

Later in history (in the Bronze and Iron Age) after the initial builders had gone, leaving only myth and legend on how and why these monuments were build, these later generations added more stones to some stone circles or they completed 'copy circles' to the environment in an attempt to mimic the ancestors and pay homage to their greatness - We have seen this with 'Round Barrows' that attracted burials and cremations some 2500 years after they were first constructed, as they were unaware of there true meaning - this has sadly confused archaeologists on the dating of these sites.

Is there any proof of this idea? 

Old Sarum to Danbury, Round Barrow walk

Alfred Watkins in his book  'The old straight track'  created the concept of "ley lines" which is generally thought of in relation to Alfred, although the stimulus and background for the concept is attributed to the English astronomer Norman Lockyer.   On 30 June 1921, Alfred Watkins visited Blackwardine in Herefordshire, and had been driving along a road near the village (which has now virtually disappeared). Attracted by the nearby archaeological investigation of a Roman camp, he stopped his car to compare the landscape on either side of the road with the marked features on his much used map. While gazing at the scene around him and consulting the map, he saw, in the words of his son, 'like a chain of fairy lights'  a series of straight alignments of various ancient features, such as standing stones, wayside crosses, causeways, hill forts and ancient churches on mounds. He realized immediately that the potential discovery had to be checked from higher ground when during a revelation he noticed that many of the footpaths there seemed to connect one hilltop to another in a straight line. He subsequently coined the term "ley" at least partly because the lines passed through places whose names contained the syllable ley.

Alfred was probably correct, as we will see later, but although (like a Roman Road) these tracks quite sensibly will be straight (quickest route) water and rivers will cause them to 'go around' marshland, bog and water.  And this concept of higher water levels in the prehistoric he never conceived.

Another researcher who came to the same conclusion was Peter Davidson, a retired engineer, who published a paper called 'Megalithic Aids to Navigation'.  Peter spent 30 years tracing patterns of settlements, monuments and artefacts from prehistoric sites on both sides of the channel and Irish sea.  He suggested that these markers steered ships into safe anchorages and 'dead-reckoning' from one stone circle to another.  In fact you can find Stone Circles on the entire coastline from Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, France, Spain  and even the Mediterranean - clearly showing the prehistoric trade routes.

Were these stones maps of the area, later to become milestones?

So the solution was in fact quite simple, they are direction finders or 'navigational aids' for boats and ships, when the waters receded in the Neolithic they would have stood at the crossroads of several pathways and the pathways would be marked with both 'round barrow' and standing stone dependent on the environment.  These roads were used at first in the Neolithic and then Bronze, Iron and even the Roman took them over, as Watkins will tell you they were as straight as the environment gets.  If you still need further persuading then here is an article from CBA magazine showing archaeological proof - including the Standing/milestone/Stone that was replaced by a wooden post in the Bronze Age.

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba120/feat1.shtml

Evolution of a road - Notice the post/stone hole in the centre.

RJL

(by Robert John Langdon)

















128 comments:

  1. “ the three main 'round barrows' at Stonehenge are surrounded by moats and with direction stones at the top. These are the Heel Stone, The Northern Station Stone and the Southern Station Stone, that point to 'Durrington Walls/Woodhenge, Avebury and Old Sarum respectively. “
    None of the three monuments are round barrows , what is common to all three are similar ditches . There are no stones atop the northern or southern barrows although there may have been in the past but it is by no means certain . Accepting that there were , how does a hypothetical directionless person orient towards Avebury with just a single stone to direct them i.e. what is the other component required to indicate direction of travel ?

    “ Especially if the Stone circle (as the one above) are placed by the sea, tracking marine routes to other islands and continents. “
    The monument is the Ring of Brodgar sited on a strip of land between Loch of Stenness and Loch of Harray , the former is a sea loch but was freshwater when the monument was built . If you wanted to “track” marine routes then wouldn’t it be more sensible to situate the observing point on the coast , rather than on a strip of land between two lochs ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon

      I disagree completely.

      The fact you have three rounded moats in isolation, one with a stone (Heel) two with mounds and excavation evidence of stones holes in the centre of the stone is as close to proof than you are going to get in prehistory.

      The fact that the Heel stone's mound has been removed is no surprise as major engineering work took place in 4300BCE - known as The Avenue, was constructed. This work was undertaken to join the lower Neolithic River (at the 'bottom')to Stonehenge and hence was constructed AFTER the Heel Stone, mound and Moat was originally built - again this has been proven by excavation as the Avenue moat cuts across the existing Heel Stone moat.

      If you stand in the CENTRE of the monument the direction is via the standing stone as illustrated on the map.

      "what is the other component required to indicate direction of travel ?" During the Mesolithic when these features were added, you would have needed a boat to get you to your destination, as Stonehenge was on a peninsula - see picture at top of blog. The Long Barrows which were constructed (sideways on to the rivers) of pure white chalk would point the way to your location, with the megalithic stones at one end to give the sign a direction.

      The mainland stone circles would direct you along rivers to sea outlets and to 'other' stone circle' direction finders - as detailed in Peter Davidson's paper 'Megalithic Aids to navigation' which is based on these shoreline based stone circles - a copy of Times Report can be found here.

      http://brian-mountainman.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/standing-stones-and-megalithic.html

      As I'm sure your aware.

      Delete
  2. Disagreeing is fine but provide some evidence to support your claim .
    Hawley in 1923 described the southern example as a “so called barrow “, Stukeley described them as “cavities “ and Wood as “concavities “ and a more recent assessment by David Field and Trevor Pearson in “Stonehenge ,Amesbury “ EH report from a couple of years ago . “One thing is certain they are not barrows “ .
    “If you stand in the CENTRE of the monument the direction is via the standing stone as illustrated on the map.”
    This is simply wrong .From the centre of Stonehenge the azimuth from the centre of the monument over the centre of the “northern barrow “ is 343 degrees which would take you quite within a mile of Marden henge which did have a genuine barrow but it is literally miles off from Avebury which would require to set off at a bearing of 343 degrees . Even if the indicated orientation was correct where are the other markers en route ? As mentioned previously walking in a straight line in real countryside is almost impossible. Try it yourself or read Nick Crane “Two degrees west “ .
    Would it really be necessary to indicate the direction to Durrington ?.At less than two miles you could hardly miss it ,unless of course if you took the centre of the monument over the Heel stone route which at 50 degrees is 11 degrees off the correct direction .Needless to say the Old Sarum direction is wrong too .From the centre of Stonehenge Old Sarum occupies a target three degrees wide i.e. 169 -172 but the bearing from the centre of the monument over the southern barrow is 162 .

    “ you can find Stone Circles on the entire coastline from Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, France, Spain and even the Mediterranean “ .
    I note that with the exception of Cornwall , England appears to be excluded from this list ,were the locals euro sceptics even then ?The vast majority of stone circles are not in sight of the sea and more importantly unsighted from the sea . The British coast line without getting fractal and being conservative is approx 8,000 miles , how many stone circles can you name on the “entire “ coastline that can be seen from the sea ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon

      When is a barrow not a barrow?

      Wiki lists 12 kinds of barrow from round, bell, bowl D-Shaped, fancy, long, oval, platform, pond, ring, saucer, square?

      As far as I'm concerned and the FACT that they have a moat and they are round and they are above ground shows me that 'statistically' the 'probability' its a barrow.

      If they were square or oblong or triangular you may have a point - if they had no moat, you may have a point - if they showed no signs of stone uprights, you may have a point - BUT they do, so you DON'T have a point!!

      OMG its you again isn't reverend??

      As we pointed out last years - do you really think that prehistoric man had a GPS system?? If so whats the point of making barrows to take you there??

      Do you look at sign posts with pointers to say 'Lands End 281 miles' or 'John O'groats 581' then go back and check them out against your OS maps - sad man!! It's called a general direction......

      "walking in a straight line in real countryside is almost impossible" - I KNOW!! Try reading the blogs before commenting - look at the map and commentary about round barrows.

      "Would it really be necessary to indicate the direction to Durrington ?.At less than two miles you could hardly miss it"

      This just shows how 'out of touch' your interpretations are Einstein - your 'reasoning' proposes that we should not of bothered with milestones or sign posts in history - as its obvious!!

      But enlighten us, how would you in prehistoric times, know where Woodhenge is in relation to Stonehenge if you have never been there before - try to remember that maps were not invented for another 5000 years???

      As for your 'observations' you need to read the article - the online times version shows a 'the Grand Menhir' which was a stone 71ft in height - if you read my blogs - IN FULL - you will also notice an invention used at Silbury Hill to attached ships - its called a beacon. There are several other methods of sea navigation, using stars and sun/moon position for small trips which are highlighted in the paper.

      It can also be seen in the International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 39 P433-435.

      RJL

      Delete
    2. THEY ARE SIMPLY A MATTER OF REASON AND FORWARD THINKING, (MEGALITHS IN THE ENGLISH CHANNEL? YES...TRAVEL )..MEETING PLACES BOTH TO AND FROM AND POINTERS FOR FURTHER TRAVEL......,ON LAND AND SEA.....,TIDAL BEFORE /AFTER ....THEY HAD MEANING IN MORE THAN ONE WAY! THIS IS MY QUESTION ,WHY IS THE NUMBER 56 INVOLVED (ORIGINAL STONEHENGE BLUESTONES) ...108 ...EASTER ISLAND ...MARITIME...BRAHMAN PRIESTS MAY HOLD THE FULL PICTURE,THEY MAINTAINED KNOWLEDGE THAT FITS HERE PEFECTLY,AND SANSKRIT IS THE COMMON ROOT OF ALL INDO/GERMANIC...LANGUAGE ...A MOAT AND SOME BUILDING WORK (Not your long awaited 2.5 meter conservatory.) may simply say be aware of rising water ...build high !

      Delete
  3. Yes Wiki lists a variety of round barrow , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round_barrow among them are Bowl barrows which not so long ago you were claiming were not round barrows i.e. “Hemp Knoll is a 'bowl barrow' …… But its NOT a round barrow! “ .

    The monuments in question have ditches , not necessarily “ moats “ . Regardless of what you might imagine those who know what they are talking about categorically state that they are not round barrows .

    “If you stand in the CENTRE of the monument the direction is via the standing stone as illustrated on the map. “ The amendments begin ,this has now become . “It's called a general direction.”

    How do you think seafarers found their way around the seas without waypointers or milestones ?

    No response at all about you mentioning some stone circles around the “entire “ coastline .

    Odd that you should say that “ remember that maps were not invented for another 5000 years??? “ then in the blog note under the Standing stone pic . “Were these stones maps of the area, later to become milestones? “
    In relation to the stone in the pic . it is to be found at Fowlis Wester ,in Perthshire the nearest coast to the east is 60 Km away to the west it is 114Km .The site consists of two kerb cairns and there is one stone in the kerb that is cup marked there are also stones in the area that are cup marked too but the only certain man made marking on the stone in the pic is a Christian cross ,what looks like a large cup is probably natural . The markings in the pic are purely in the imagination of another fabulist .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Furthermore Geo

      If they are not direction finders what are they?

      Why place a moat around just three stones?

      Why are all three pointing in the direction of the three biggest settlements around Stonehenge at the time of construction??

      Or do you have nothing to add but negativity as your devoid of any answers?

      RJL

      Delete
  4. Geo

    They are round and they have moats and they are mounds - that's a round barrow. How does one know, that's because they are direction finders - simple.

    Only foolish archaeologists do not recognise that digging ditches without a product (for no good reason) is plain nonsense!!

    As for requiring landscape indicators accurate to x degrees is also plain nonsense - the only time that high degrees of accuracy would be needed is the judgement of seasons - and this could be done with sun/moon setting behind structures or landscape feature. In the past (prior to os maps) and even today, general directions have always been accepted - go to the local mosque and check that the prayers are pointing directly to Mecca (as i'm sure every degree counts with god!!) and see if they thank you - lol!

    "How do you think seafarers found their way around the seas without waypointers or milestones ?" Interesting unqualified question.. no idea what you talking about, so I go for maps as an answered from the 16th C - or can I phone a friend?

    No response is normally due to you 'not making sense' so on those occasions, I ignore the comment so "No response at all about you mentioning some stone circles around the “entire “ coastline ." had no response as the question was (again) unqualified. In a vain effort to make sense of this nonsense - are you suggesting the entire coast line needs to have stone circles, if so why? Consequently, if the answer is yes, do you therefore need light houses on every rock outcrop on an island to allow ships to sail safely??

    I KNOW maps were around in the Mesolithic, but you academics don't believe so - just trying to help you!! if you agree that standing stones are maps JUST SAY SO!!

    IF NOT explain how you would know that Woodhenge is in relation to Stonehenge if you have never been there before and there are not such thing as maps??????? As you originally suggested.

    Who knows, one day I may get a straight answer.

    As for the stone illustration - to try and identify the elements after 10,000 years of erosion is (in my view) futile - but as you clearly have a strange mind, so be my guest.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  5. It only appears like negativity to you because of the mistakes being highlighted , it is actually quite positive .
    e.g. “three main 'round barrows' at Stonehenge are surrounded by moats and with direction stones at the top. These are the Heel Stone, The Northern Station Stone and the Southern Station Stone that point to 'Durrington Walls/Woodhenge, Avebury and Old Sarum respectively. “
    In those four lines nearly everything is wrong . The heel stone has never been described as a barrow by anyone but you .The other two , despite their name , have from the earliest antiquarians through excavators like Hawley and up to the present day have never been considered barrows . They are surrounded by ditches only you describe the ditches as moats . They do not “point “ to the sites as you claim .It was you who invoked Watkins with his “series of straight alignments of various ancient features “ and “connect one hilltop to another in a straight line.” Any straight line taken from these directions would lead you astray .

    If the direction from centre of the monument to the heel stone and “northern and southern barrows “ is not accurate or as you prefer to say “ general “ why assume direction finders in the first place how do you know that these are actually indications of direction at all , or even towards the sites you suggest when in one case Marden complete with a real barrow was closer and the direction indicated more accurate .
    From the centre of the monument over the Heel Stone is a rough orientation on the solstice and when the other station stones are included with the “barrows “ lunar alignments are found that are accurate , certainly suggesting something more intentional than very rough directions .
    There are many other errors to address but this will have to do for just now .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      It's negative because you don't have anything to contribute, like most academics you look for flaws within ideas to justify your own inabilities.

      The fact that three and only three stones are moated clearly shows they are special and as they have the same attributes are clearly connected - using existing methodologies you're incapable of understanding there significance. You are like a blind man disregarding his dog and others as he believes if he can't see, nor can anyone else.

      The best you can offer is the tired solar alignment, which clearly doesn't make sense as the stone has been pushed over to meet the sunrise, rather than being built for that purpose. And a couple of lunar settings which with you 'pin point' accuracy for measurements you fall to give us any dates of relevance - did your calculator run out of batteries?

      That fact you can not see the relevance of three moated stones pointing to other sites, clearly shows your lack the rational intelligence that would allow you to conceive the information contained on my blog - which would explain your lack of comprehension and consequently, pointless questions you have asked.

      RJL

      PS In a 'nutshell' Einstein - people have not regarded them (the mounds)as barrows because most idiots think barrows are for burials, which even you admitted was not true as we found one without a burial.

      Delete
  6. “ I KNOW maps were around in the Mesolithic “ without evidence what you mean is that you believe maps …etc . There are another couple of Mesolithic problems
    “The original Mesolithic Stone Circles of the Atlanteans/Cro-magnons - such as Stonehenge “ and “Mesolithic 'Long Barrow' “ . The former is quite funny but I’m sure your’e serious .Once again no evidence for either in the British Mesolithic so you should at least preface such stuff with qualifiers like “I believe “


    Rather than repeat the entire question I said “"No response at all about you mentioning some stone circles around the “entire “ coastline ." So to simplify here’s the question and comment it was related to again .
    “ you can find Stone Circles on the entire coastline from Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, France, Spain and even the Mediterranean “ .
    I note that with the exception of Cornwall , England appears to be excluded from this list ,were the locals euro sceptics even then ?The vast majority of stone circles are not in sight of the sea and more importantly unsighted from the sea . The British coast line without getting fractal and being conservative is approx 8,000 miles , how many stone circles can you name on the “entire “ coastline that can be seen from the sea ? This is the question you did not respond to .
    BTW There are standing stones with perfectly clear markings probably dating from the Neolithic-BA .Although there has always been suggestions that the markings are that of constellations ,or local monuments etc never have any been found to correspond to either .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      Read the first paragraph again - its gobbled, which no doubt you will claim that I have not answered your question. I think your trying to say is 'Stone circles' and 'Long Barrows' are not Mesolithic? And the answer to that question we have commented before - several times!!

      So I will put it in another ways so you can undrstand better - What evidence is their that Stone Circles and Long Barrows ARE NOT Mesolithic, taking into account that you can not carbon date stone and anything found in the vicinity is NOT PROOF it's associated evidence - remember the cemetery analogy, which you failed to respond too!!

      Paragraph two is also not only garbled but even more painfully repeated - it didn't make sense the first time and it sure doesn't make sense now!!

      Again, trying to read through the lines of this rubbish, did you not read the lighthouse analogy - you have more Stone Circles around Britain's shores than Light Houses - hope you up to understanding the comparison.

      RJL

      Delete
  7. Geo

    You never commented on the road on the blog - did you miss the first road had a marker in the centre of the road - I wonder what that was???

    Lets go for a wooden post as we are dumb archaeologists and dont understand the origin of miles stones or round barrow alignments - lol

    Slowly but surely, you academics will catch up with me - but not in your lifetime as the dogma you regurgitate is thick as pig's poo!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Read the first paragraph again - its gobbled "
    "Gobbled " ?
    My contribution is to point out your mistakes .
    As usual bluster , caps and rudeness replaces any response or evidence to the difficulties you get yourself into with the nonsense statements like suggesting the heel stone is a barrow .
    The fact is that the centre of the monument to the Heel stone is a rough alignment on the solstice within a degree and a half , whether intentional or not it’s an awful lot closer than your general direction which was out by 10 .
    Can you clarify “And a couple of lunar settings which with you 'pin point' accuracy for measurements you fall to give us any dates of relevance “ and where did I use the term “ pin point accuracy “ ? .

    Clearly there is no evidence that any British stone circles or long barrows are Mesolithic , just as there is no evidence for any Mesolithic map .
    . If you find the stone circle question so difficult I’ll simplify .
    How many British stone circles can you name that are visible from the sea ?
    Despite it being a typically poor analogy here is a an incomplete list of lighthouses .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lighthouses_in_Scotland
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lighthouses_in_England

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      A degree and a half!! How exact, shame about your other answers are less.

      So tell us on WHAT DAY or MONTH will the moon set behind the Northern Station Stone?

      Tell us WHY after a million hours of labour to build Stonehenge did they NOT place the Heel stone in the CENTRE of the Avenue?

      And WHY they had to TILT the stone over to meet the Solstice?

      When you FAIL to answer all three question, you may see that you should stop RAMBLING on about nothing relevant and LISTEN to someone that knows the ANSWERS.

      RJL

      NB - The list of Coastal Stone circles listing in the 30 year study can be found in the publication "Megalithic Aids to Navigation" by Peter Davidson 1990
      This covers Scotland, Wales , Ireland, Devon/Cornwall and France.

      Delete
  9. A convenient way of avoiding problems raised from your comments is to ask a bunch of questions
    With one possible exception that I haven’t commented on .
    Due to the large number of errors and self contradictory comments it is easy to lose track of critical points that have been avoided . Like this one .
    Yes Wiki lists a variety of round barrow , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round_barrow among them are Bowl barrows which not so long ago you were claiming were not round barrows i.e. “Hemp Knoll is a 'bowl barrow' …… But its NOT a round barrow! “ .
    When the these errors are cleared up you may get some answers to your other types of problem . As was apparent from other mentions of anything astro on Brian’s blog your understanding of the subject is even more limited than your archaeological .
    Take the first question , when you say the northern station stone do you mean the so called “ northern barrow “ which doesn’t have a stone ? If so , is there a particular phase of the moon needed , e.g. can it be a dark moon or must it be full ? but more importantly what is the observation point in relation to the “barrow “? . Then there are problems like the lunar cycles ,unlike the sun the moon will not set at the same spot on the same day and month annually , if so is there a particular year needed ?
    As you believe you know the answer maybe you can inform us , I imagine , from past experience that it will be wrong .
    You have also still failed to answer the question about how many British stone circles you can name that can be seen from the sea .I don't have the book why don't you simply answer the question ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      Sadly this is were you criticisms fall 'tumbling down' again!

      I'll help you as I used to be a teacher in a previous life (Computer Programming) as you are lacking in the ability to answer a straight question with a straight answer - you would make a good archaeological lecturer - they were like you unable to answer any questions outside the set dogma, sorry curriculum, at Birkbeck.

      1. The moon can't set behind the northern station stone - the clue is in the name 'northern' even a child would know that the moon rises in the east and goes down in the west (not north/south) basic schoolboy error - which blows your idea out the water again!

      2. & 3 not even attempted

      1/10 Could do better - must listen more to people who know more than you before pontificating. Now go sit on the naughty stair.

      RJL

      Delete
  10. I reckon they didn't make the stone circles out of wood because it was important to make them with stone. Wood would have been easier to work with and have been taller (height being useful for a signpost).

    I am reminded of many stone circles that are not easy to see unless you are right on top of them - Gors Fawr for one, Priddy for another.

    I can believe that long barrows, stone circles, standing stones, etc, would have become landmarks after they were built. Yet I doubt this is the main reason for their construction - there are much simpler ways to make signposts and likely more effective. Surely your putative civilization was able to light a fire and make a tin or copper reflector?

    People tend to solve problems that are important to them. Even in the stone age there were better ways to make a lighthouse than creating a stone circle or were they dowsing for the emanations?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris

      I'm sure that there was either wooden 'sign posts' first or on less 'important' sites - for as you say they are much easier to construct - as we do now with wooden sign posts.

      Stone is more permanent and important. These were 'major' sign posts as in crossroads and sea navigation aids as Peter Davidson has studied in his report - wood does not last well in adverse weather conditions.

      The fact that milestones were stone and did not appear in the Roman empire until after their conquest of Gaul quite interesting as a historian, for the Roman's were masters of 'assimilating' other cultures and ideas.

      RJL

      Delete
  11. Anon

    I think that Robert's use of the word 'barrow' is not to far fetched.

    The 'barrows' are visible in the north and south mounds and looking at the construction of the Heel 'mound' they would have to placed the chalk taken out of the ditch 'somewhere' and the obvvious place would be the middle.

    Clearly all the ditch digging to create a round or long barrow was naturally placed at the centre of the circle creating a mound. The fact that it is now missing only reinforces his argument about remodelling.

    The fact that we see various mounds in the prehistoric which have been labelled by archaeologists as 'barrows' rather than tumuli supports his assumption.

    Dr Stuart Love

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stuart

      Quite right!

      Dig a hole and the spoil will be labelled 'barrow' by most archaeologists.

      RJL

      Delete
  12. Stuart , the use of the term Barrow for the so called “northern and southern barrows “ is according to anyone who knows about these sites from antiquarians to contemporary experts ,is simply wrong .It looks like you and RJL are the only people who believe them to be such . Hawley in 1923 described the southern example as a “so called barrow “, Stukeley described them as “cavities “ and Wood as “concavities “ and a more recent assessment by David Field and Trevor Pearson in “Stonehenge ,Amesbury “ EH report from a couple of years ago . “One thing is certain they are not barrows “ Similarly there is no evidence to suggest that the Heel stone was ever part of a barrow and nobody who has ever excavated or knows anything about Stonehenge has ever described as it as such ,it is simply a standing stone with an encircling ditch .
    Not all ditches have their their associated bank inside the ditch e.g. most henges . The term tumuli is not too precise , a bit like barrow it covers a wide spectrum of monuments .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      'Stonehenge in its landscape' Cleal et al EH 1995 - the definitive guide to Stonehenge, refers throughout the book to the NORTH and SOUTH BARROW.

      End of Story!! When your in a hole........

      RJL

      Delete
  13. " The moon can't set behind the northern station stone - the clue is in the name 'northern' even a child would know that the moon rises in the east and goes down in the west (not north/south) basic schoolboy error - which blows your idea out the water again! "

    Even when trying to be clever the mistakes keep coming .Of course the moon can be seen to set behind the northern station stone .Your basic knowledge doesn't extend to to understanding that the moon also sets in the NW and for that matter the SW I think schoolboys and girls may know that too , in fact from station stone 91 over the northern barrow the azimuth is very close to the northern major standtill , basic stuff .Pity there were no caps they help to pinpoint errors .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      NW is not North!!

      Give us a date this year when it will set behind the Northern Station Stone - or eat some more humble pie?

      RJL

      Delete
  14. The Cleal book is indeed the definitive book on Stonehenge at no point is the Heel stone ever considered to have been a barrow and a closer reading will reveal the all important parenthese i.e. "South Barrow " ,"North Barrow " and "Barrow " ditch (note not moat ).Ask Ms Cleal she will tell you along with anyone that knows anything about the monument or barrows that they are not barrows .

    ReplyDelete
  15. Do you understand perspective .? for some Watford is North but for others it can be …..((fill in the blank(s) , you don’t have to be open minded just sensible ))

    The "northern Barrow " is described as being northern to distinguish it from the "southern barrow " .It is no more North than Watford is to the southcentric .
    I gave you the clue a few posts ago “when the other station stones are included with the “barrows “ , lunar alignments are found that are accurate” so much more accurate than the unsupportable general directions thought which has never been found at any other monument unlike astro alignments that of the two suggestions for a purpose one wouldn’t even be considered .
    In you attempt to be clever you forgot the clue and perspective You then said you had all the answers , you couldn’t even frame the question properly never mind answer it .
    You then ask for the date this year when the moon will set behind the Northern station stone , have you not learnt anything ? Another question that shows your lack of any understanding . The moon will set behind the northern station stone from many situations this year it depends where the observer is sited , perspective again . If you mean as seen from stone 91 then as has been mentioned the observation will occur during the period of the major standstill ,something else you appear to misunderstand , it will not occur this year and in the years it does there will be more than one as it is a period not a date although there is one date when it will be at it’s maximum . By avoiding the earlier questions and creating a distraction you have only managed in providing yet more classic mistaken quotes and thinking .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      You failed to stop digging!!

      "Do you understand perspective .?" - complete rubbish yet again!!

      The moon sets over the Northern barrow of Stonehenge - AS VIEWED FROM WOODHENGE!!!! its all a question of perspective - you idiot!

      Your making the absurd ideas of Kostas look reasonable - at least he does it to engage in intellectual argument which clearly shows he doesn't really believe it - you on the other hand are totally deluded and actually believe this codswallop.

      Go back read my posts from the beginning, order my books, sit in a quite room and remember your know nothing and read - its never too late to educate yourself.

      RJL

      Delete
  16. I don't recall being able to see Stonehenge from Woodhenge. Ah well, live and learn.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It gets worse, not only do you avoid questions by asking others that are are meaningless on a subject that you clearly don’t understand ,and thus include even greater numbers of mistakes but they keep coming .The latest .
    “The moon sets over the Northern barrow of Stonehenge - AS VIEWED FROM WOODHENGE “
    Have you ever been to Woodhenge ? The so called “ northern barrow “ is unsighted .

    Note that I continually quote you and point out these mistakes all you do in response is reply by bluster , rudeness and caps .As I have kept asking in the past simply quote me then refute , simply saying something is codswallop then not proffering anything in relation to the discussion is telling .

    I doubt that you will manage to even begin to understand the lunar cycle but make an attempt to read the post about the major standstill ask anyone who knows about the subject and refute any comment made about it then we can get back to the other problems that you have failed to address , or will you make yet another daft comment to continue the distraction .I have never been a fan of the "so bad it's good " view and gave up getting laughs from alt archaeology /fantasy books a long time ago . If these recent postings are anything to go by there would be a lifetimes worth of correction involved .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You idiot!

      It's an ironic statement - it's called 'humour', obviously completely lost on you, as you needs a degree of intelligence to understand the irony, which clearly you do not have!

      I bet your one of those people that you have to explain jokes too over the dinner table or refuse to watch Monty Python as you can't understand it?

      To move this conversation on a quantum leap (do you need for me to explain that to you?) your one of those fools that take the four 'station stones' and come up with alignments aren't you??

      The problem with these 'misguided' people is that they ignore that only two of the stones have barrows and moats - the third, the Heel Stone they ignore completely and they concluded that the original builders 'forgot to add these features' to the stones in question - the simple answer is 'your nuts' why spend so much time building two station stone sites (with moats and a barrows)and not the other two - 'it beggars belief' - sheer codswallop and fantasy by idiots who think they understand astronomy.

      And as for "I doubt that you will manage to even begin to understand the lunar cycle but make an attempt to read the post about the major standstill ask anyone who knows about the subject" I was employed as my first job after school at Herstmonceux (if you don't know what that was,look it up fool) - I have forgotten more about astronomy than you'll ever know in your lifetime.

      The moons major standstill can only reach azimuth of 328 degrees - the Northern Barrow is 334 degrees your 6 degrees out - with 'precession' - remember that's the thing you got wrong last year - the variation is more like 10 degrees at the time of construction.

      You should go back to Brian's rock collecting club - they think your cleaver.

      RJL

      Delete
  18. Robert you write,

    “Your making the absurd ideas of Kostas look reasonable - at least he does it to engage in intellectual argument which clearly shows he doesn't really believe it”

    For the record, let me assure you all my comments are sincere and honest reflections of what I have come to conclude through objective reasoning. Taking only the 'facts on the ground' and not interpretations of these facts as evidence. The rare exceptions to this are when I want to poke fun of your ideas in exasperation to your twisted arguments and stretch of evidence.

    But I do find your comment “to engage in intellectual argument” revealing of your attitudes. You apparently think anything thought and reasoned is suspect of not being true (“he doesn't really believe it”).

    You can't be more mistaken. For me, intellectual honesty is synonymous to personal integrity. You seem not to believe in either!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      It was (a kind) of complement.

      I think your intelligent - fellow quantum man!!

      So you can't really believe that rubbish you peddle!

      RJL

      Delete
    2. Robert,

      There is nothing rubbish about a 4 ton bluestone on the surface of your frozen waterways being moved by a 60 mph wind from Wales to Stonehenge! As I have shown to be 'rationally plausible' through my mathematical calculations using sound basic physics.

      http://www.thefacultypublishinggroup.com/Archeology/Stonehenge%20Problem%20B.pdf

      But of course, sound science is not what you are all about. Your dreamboat blog (and fantasy books) are a place for bluster and controversy aimed at increasing your book sales and readership. And I can appreciate that. And simply not take you seriously.

      Geo's problem is he is taking you seriously! And you have drawn him into your devil's lair unwittingly of your intentions.

      Congratulations!

      Kostas

      Delete
    3. Robert,

      The link in my last post above does not work for some reason! Know (done) anything about this? Just in case I list the URL without the link for those interested in examining my calculations. They can cut and paste this into their browser to access my note.

      http://www.thefacultypublishinggroup.com/Archeology/Stonehenge%20Problem%20B.pdf

      Kostas

      Delete
  19. Robert, you spin ideas like a catherine wheel on bonfire night. This is why I like your blog.

    The stone milestones first invented by the Romans after the conquest of Gaul is a typical flash.

    Of course, having read Julius book on the Gallic Wars I cannot really agree that he assimilated the Gallic culture. He destroyed it with incredible brutality.

    The stone milestones always remind me of Hitler - an empire designed to last a thousand years. I hope your Cro-magnons are different, otherwise I shall be glad they have disappeared.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Chris

    Sadly Julius book is spin itself!!

    He doesn't tell you about the first failed invasion of Britain which was a complete failure - the empire lost considerable money. When they returned they learned from their previous mistakes and brought British mercenaries to fight and infiltrate the British tribes. He did the same in Gaul after several defeats - this was the only information of relevance that I learnt on my Birkbeck archaeology course.

    I can't remember the tutor but he was always on time-team as a expert - then he informed be that he never got paid for his appearances - so not much of an expert really!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  21. The signs of even more extreme rudeness and lack of content is telling . No quotes to refute I note ,and no mention of the ridiculous “The moon sets over the Northern barrow of Stonehenge - AS VIEWED FROM WOODHENGE “
    if you actually know anything about the basic cycles of the moon you would not have made the numerous basic errors you have .
    “ the Northern Barrow is 334 degrees” what does that mean , without a point to relate it to ?
    As I mentioned a few posts ago the azimuth from stone 91 , one of the station stones over the so called “northern barrow “ provides an azimuth and resulting declination that is close to the major standstill ,it is much less than 334 degrees .
    Provide a quote that shows I was wrong about precession “ from a year ago “ as you claim .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The azimuth readings are from CENTRE of the MONUMENT - that's why they built it numpty! From what angle are you looking at it from is a mystery to man and beast if its not Woodhenge then it must be planet Mars (do you now understand what ironic means???)

      If you keep asking the same dumb questions about station stones I shall just repeating the same answer:

      " The problem with these 'misguided' people is that they ignore that only two of the stones have barrows and moats - the third, the Heel Stone they ignore completely and they concluded that the original builders 'forgot to add these features' to the stones in question - the simple answer is 'your nuts' why spend so much time building two station stone sites (with moats and a barrows)and not the other two - 'it beggars belief' - sheer codswallop and fantasy by idiots who think they understand astronomy."

      As for 'precession' as shown here you have learnt nothing!

      http://robertjohnlangdon.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/stone-me-druids-are-looking-wrong-way.html?showComment=1308311287007#c3305175137050984023

      Delete
  22. Maybe we read different books. Julius does tell about the first invasion, although he calls it a reconnaissance. Calling it a failure is a matter of perspective perhaps, or spin.

    His second invasion might be considered a failure. The eventual conquest of substantial parts of Britain happened much later under a different emperor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris

      Hence the spin. You don't invade a country for 'reconnaissance' then go back 85 years later - there is no profit in it and the Roman empire ran on profit!

      The second invasion was successful and the money invested in the campaign was rewarded with gold, goods and the common currency of Roman - slaves.

      RJL

      Delete
    2. Harvey Shelton - lecturer I forget!!

      He did not like the essay I produced that stated Hadrian's Wall had two purposes - partially to keep the 'barbarians' out, but moreover, to keep the Brit slaves from escaping north to freedom.

      RJL

      Delete
    3. Hadrian's wall is curious and has, I believe, something in common with both Stonehenge and Avebury in that the ostensible purpose is only a part of the story.

      Had there been no written record, future generations would have been really puzzled about the remains of the wall. Militarily it does not make sense - it would not have prevented a big invasion and a few units of cavalry prepared to launch punitive expeditions would have deterred the cattle raiders. And why paint it white? It was also hugely costly to maintain. From a utilitarian perspective Hadrian's wall makes no sense at all.

      From Hadrian's perspective the project would have been booked on his PR budget - I believe. The age of expansion is ended. We are drawing lines around our empire. Hadrian was also an early Keynesian - grand public works are good for failing economies as are military/industrial complexes. It would have also impressed the Brits on the southern part of the island - much as projects like the millennium dome, cross rail, and the olympics make a political statement that is bigger than the cost/benefit equation.

      I don't know Harvey Shelton but I doubt that preventing slaves escaping was any part of Hadrian's agenda, even secretly. And what do you think might have happened to any slaves running north - I suspect they might have been re-enslaved, captured and sold back to the Romans, or left to starve in the woods. I doubt they would have been embraced as freedom fighters or escapees from Colditz - just more mouths to feed from a very marginal economy.

      Delete
    4. Chris

      As you quite rightly say - we have limited information about Hadrian's wall and its true purpose. This is compounded some 20 years later by the construction of Antonine Wall - the Emperor was son of Hadrian and was 'non-aggressive' as he never tried to expand the emperor, yet the wall was built - the only logical conclusion was to stop the slave leaving.

      RJL

      Delete
    5. Slaves were ten-a-penny in Roman times.

      I suspect the Antonine wall was built by an adopted son who had failed to understand. Fathers do not get to choose wisdom for their sons, even when adopted. Dynasties have this fundamental weakness.

      The Antonine wall would not have worked had it been built of stone and painted white and been manned by 20000 legionaries. It had zero PR value, actually negative PR value, and was built by an imbecile - imho. The realistic option would have been to exterminate the Northern tribes, but as you said this would have brought no profit and resulted in great expense. It might even have failed.

      Delete
    6. Chris

      I don't think you view of slaves is accurate. Here is an extract from a publication that I used to analyse on the costs of economic slavery, prior to my essay to Harvey on Hadrian's wall.

      "We must bear in mind that much of this argument hinges on the representative nature of these freed slaves: if they were atypical – i.e. more highly skilled or otherwise more privileged than the average slave – their fees need not tell us a great deal about basic income levels. Moreover, my own survey of slave prices and free wages reveals
      further complications: broadly speaking, it appears that slaves in classical Athens were rather cheap (relative to wage levels), whereas in Roman Egypt (and probably in other parts of the empire as well) they were relatively more expensive.

      This suggests that the relationship between slave prices and wages was more complex and mediated by
      secondary factors such as turnover risk, i.e. the stability of labor markets. Nonetheless,
      at least in principle, this indirect approach once again permits us to extend our studies
      beyond the narrow confines of existing data sets on wages. " New ways of studying incomes in the Roman economy"

      http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/110604.pdf

      RJL

      Delete
    7. Thanks for the link. You are right that I am too quick off the mark with my "ten a penny" assertion.

      Delete
  23. More mistakes . I have already told you the azimuth was derived from the station stone (stone 91) over the “ northern barrow “ not the centre of the monument i.e . in the comment “If you mean as seen from stone 91 then as has been mentioned the observation will occur during the period of the major standstill “.
    If you would only read what is written and not imagine things you might get on a bit quicker . I never said anything about intentionality in relation to the alignment but mentioned it because it was so much more accurate and had precedents as opposed to your general direction fantasy which is unlikely , inaccurate and without precedence .


    You mentioned I had got something wrong about precession and I asked for a quote ,for once you provided something ,the only problem is that I'm not Colin Shearing so once more yet another mistake

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo (I can't believe your not Colin as the chances getting two numpties that are azimuth obsessed archaeoastronomers seems impossible!!).

      As for this obsession for stone 91 - what on earth is this to do with the original construction???

      You clearly have no idea about the sequencing of Stonehenge - it was added THOUSANDS of years LATER at the time of the SARSEN STONES - the clue is that IT IS NOT A BORROW WITH A MOAT AROUND IT!!

      Let me clarify, as your the expert in mistakes:

      Your original criticism was that the barrows were not barrows - which you now admit your were wrong accept the Heel barrow, as your pride stops you concluding that your a complete numpty (because its so obvious that as your may have two of the same design a third with Stone, Mound and Moat, but the third with just Stone and Moat will never have and the mound).

      And at this point, lets us look at now three new barrows without burials and stones at the top. Remembering from the previous blog your comments of "you have no evidence" - lets not call these mistakes just 'bad judgement' calls.

      You then gave us the theory that these barrows were archaeoastromical positions not direction finders (as they were '1.5 of a degree out' or some other gibberish! and you felt the term 'general direction' was unacceptable - as you were so accurate in your calculations).

      To find that the Northern Barrow was between 6 to 10 degrees out of alignment (from the centre), unless you ignored the entire structure and the millions of man hours it took to make such a monument and you stand at the edge of the moat by a stone placed there some thousands of years after its initial construction and looked towards the North Barrow Stone.

      Well I have no problem with that, it seems as clear as mud now, I've obviously made a mistake, I apologise, your not a numpty - your a complete idiot!

      RJL

      Delete
  24. I’m not surprised you getting people mixed up and note no sign of an apology also par for the course . The 334 degrees also seems to have conveniently been forgotten about .
    The more you write it appears the more mistakes I have to deal with , you constantly put your foot in it . This latest post is riddled with mistakes ,misrepresentations and a tiring repetition of abusive vocabulary ,I’m sure you can find some new terms that you must probably encounter aimed at you on a daily basis . A typical made up misrepresentation .” Your original criticism was that the barrows were not barrows - which you now admit your were wrong “ Where did I admit that I was wrong ? . You have been presented with various comments by people who know about the monument stating that they are clearly not barrows do you want them repeated ? and you have failed to provide any similar quotes to the contrary . It’s black and white , those who know about the monument have stated over the years that they are not barrows , find any mention by anyone who knows about the monument ,Ros Cleal would be a good example ,who actually says anything to the contrary and quote it , not something you think someone says but actual quotes from real people seem a major problem with you .
    Shouting that the barrows with moats (both terms are wrong ) is somehow proof that station stone 91 was somehow erected thousands of years later is a good example of your error ridden bluster . Look at the sequence , not something dreamt up by fantasists , but the one suggested by Cleal and accepted with slight modifications by nearly everyone who knows anything about the monument . Phase 1 :bank and ditch and later Aubrey Holes 3100-2900 BC .The station stones , of which stone 91 is one , erected circa 2550 BC +/- 50 years (note this is not thousands of years later ) .Sarsen stones circa 2400 BC . have a look at wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge ,it gives a similar account . The last couple of paragraphs were a bit garbled but I pointed out that your general direction idea was far from accurate had no precedents whilst the astro alignments were accurate and did have precedents if one was looking for an explanation ,as you were , I think most would plump for the former .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      Your right Geo, the Northern Barrow marker stone isn't 334 degrees its 339 degrees YOUR EVEN MORE OUT THAN I ESTIMATED from memory (now i'm back in my office)as the moon reaches a max of 328 degrees azimuth every 18.5 years (why they wish to know such things only a 'person' like you will know) but that's makes you some 11 degrees OUT not including precession if you measure from the centre of the Monument - not even close really are you??

      Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:38:00 AM YOUR COMMENT
      "The Cleal book is indeed the definitive book on Stonehenge at no point is the Heel stone ever considered to have been a barrow and a closer reading will reveal the all important parenthese i.e. "South Barrow " ,"North Barrow " and "Barrow " ditch " - I take it your alzheimers must be kicking in??

      AGAIN WE ASK if stone 91 was contemporary with both the North Barrow and South Barrow - WHY DOES IT NOT HAVE ITS OWN BARROW??

      If the Barrow stones are not direction indicators WHY DOES THE HEEL STONE BARROW NOT POINT TO THE SOLSTICE SUNRISE without the stone needing to be leant over?? and why is THE HEEL STONE not in the CENTRE of the Avenue?

      I would go further into the complicated aspects of dates - but to be honest I don't think you have the capability to understand anything so complex so I'll keep it simple for you!!

      RJL

      Delete
    2. NOTE!

      Further to my comment have been doing some research to 'try to understand' what geo is rambling on about.

      A definition of the Station stone term barrow shows the problem on the 'English Heritage Website' pastscape:

      http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=219780&sort=4&search=all&criteria=stonehenge

      Which states "Four sarsen stones at Stonehenge placed inside the internal bank of the henge, roughly on the line of the Aubrey Holes (see SU 14 SW 4 for Stonehenge). Two, known as the North Barrow and South Barrow, are surrounded by circular ditches, which gave rise to suggestions that they might have been round barrows. As a result, the have been listed by Grinsell as Amesbury 12 and 13, a possible saucer barrow and possible bowl barrow respectively."

      Then its said s quite abruptly and without explanation "they are not barrows"

      The reality is found on the BA web site when they suggest "The well-known North and South "Barrows" are not barrows (burial mounds)."

      So what has happened is that they have been 'reclassified' but why?

      Because people like me ask difficult questions which archaeologist can not answer such as - if we find barrows without bodies, they can't be burial mounds can they!

      And to avoid being proven 'idiots' they simple change 400 years of accepted history.....lol!!

      Fortunately, my book proves that Stonehenge (and its phases) are much older than archaeologists currently estimate - which means these are Britains first Barrows and guess what... no bodies.

      RJL

      Delete
    3. Robert

      I refer you to my earlier comment on 'Barrows'.

      The original English for 'burial mound' is tumuli from the latin 'tumulus and has been around since the 8th C. The word 'Barrow' is an archaeological word from the 15th C.

      If they wanted to refer to 'burial mounds' they should use 'tumuli' not 'barrow' its incorrect English. So I'm a bit at a loss to why the 'mounds' in Stonehenge are still called barrows?

      Dr Stuart Love

      Delete
    4. Stuart

      Sorry I can't explain it!

      Its a complete nonsense which sadly sums up the 'rank' amateurs that current run archaeology. There were very good reason that the past archaeologists called them barrows not tumulus - and that was the fact that when they excavated them (in there hundreds in Victorian times) no bodies were found, a part from a few that were buried at a later date to the original Barrow.

      This is not the first time this has happened, the Victorians named Cro-Magnons as a separate species, as it was taller, stronger and more intelligent than Homo Sapiens - when genetics found that the DNA was in most Northern European, the label was dropped for a more politically correct 'modern man', hiding the truth.

      This is the reason I went into authorship - to correct the lies of history and archaeology.

      RJL

      Delete
  25. Your right Geo, “Northern Barrow marker stone isn't 334 degrees its 339 degrees YOUR EVEN MORE OUT THAN I ESTIMATED from memory (now i'm back in my office)as the moon reaches a max of 328 degrees azimuth every 18.5 years “
    First para . Another example of misquotation ,misunderstanding and mistakes .Where did make any comment that could be construed as “right “ about the 334 degrees , I asked this question “ the Northern Barrow is 334 degrees” what does that mean ? Which you didn’t respond to then I asked again ,now you have changed it but it is still equally meaningless without noticing the relationship , the “northern barrow “ is 334 or 339 degrees , as seen from ? The maximum azimuth at the major standstill depends on the horizon and latitude in the case of Stonehenge (lat 51.178 ) it is 317 .5 degrees at the time of build of ditch and bank . To get an azimuth of 328 at the standstill you would have to be at a latitude of around 55.5 i.e. . just south of Glasgow with a similar flat horizon to Stonehenge , in Shetland it would get to 345 degrees . The max point in the cycle is 18.6 years .
    One question and a bunch of figures that disagree with yours , if wrong they could easily be shown to be so . Quote and refute .
    I note again a complete evasion regarding the mistakes pointed out from the accepted phasing of the monument by Cleal and anyone who knows about the monument in this comment “You clearly have no idea about the sequencing of Stonehenge - it was added THOUSANDS of years LATER at the time of the SARSEN STONES - the clue is that IT IS NOT A BORROW WITH A MOAT AROUND IT!! “ Similarly quote and refute .

    .You wouldn’t know where to start in choosing the nuttiest statements but that’s a goodie , in caps too .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      1. There are 360 degrees in a circle.

      2. The number 0 is to the north

      3. Print out the diagram picture of Stonehenge (as on the blog)

      4. Place the North to the top of the page

      5. Buy a protractor and measure 339 degrees from the centre of the stone circle - that's the north stone azimuth direction

      6. Measure 328 degrees - that where the moon will set once ever 18.5 years maximum azimuth declination

      7. Notice they can never overlap and scratch your head and say URRRRH!


      We clearly need to go real slowly with you - so I will only answer one question at a time as you get confused at your age!

      RJL

      Delete
    2. PS

      6. Measure 317.5 degrees if you have not included precession in your calculations - even greater error margin of 20 degrees +

      RJL

      Delete
    3. PPS

      Do you now agree that the Northern Barrow was not built for the Lunar standstill (or any other lunar activity) from the centre of Stonehenge?

      RJL

      Delete
  26. I didn’t think it could get any worse but that list explains a lot .You use a protractor and a “diagram picture “ to work out your astronomy . It probably also explains the 334 which became 339 , you think that is the azimuth from the centre over the “northern barrow “ ,wrong again . Read any archaeoastronomy book in relation to Stonehenge that is accurate then try your methodology it won’t match because 1) Most archaeological plans are based on magnetic north when what is needed is true north , using a diagram picture “ will provide god knows what inaccuracies 2) It is hardly ideal to use something that small scale with a protractor .3) Do you know where the centre of the circle is ? After the methodological madness 6 ) Shows where this leads , 317 .5 IS the azimuth for the major standstill at Stonehenge From the centre of the circle to the “northern barrow “ is close to 343 degrees ,I have already told you would have to be just south of Glasgow to get an azimuth of 328 on a relatively flat horizon .6) Has a telling phrase “azimuth declination “ that is pure nonsense clearly showing you don’t what you are talking about , both azimuths and declinations are measured in degrees and the azimuth is contained in the declination calculation but “azimuth declination” is an oxymoron , like lunar solstice .It’s also apparent you don’t understand what a major standstill is ,,for a start it is an 18.6 year cycle but the moon will set more than once very close to the maximum point , i.e. it’s not an event like the solstice but a period . 6) was followed by a another 6) that’s not surprising , which made little sense , precession has nothing like a 20 degree impact on calculations for a period 4500 years ago , maybe you menat parallax which is more important in relation to lunar calculations but even then it nothing like 20 degrees .Where did I ever suggest that the “northern barrow “ was built for the “lunar Lunar standstill (or any other lunar activity) from the centre of Stonehenge “ .Read what I have written ,use quotes don’t make things up . I pointed out that the azimuth and resulting declination from Station Stone 91 to the “northern barrow “ was much more accurate than your general direction idea and if you were looking for a reason it was a better bet than your idea which consider incredibly unlikely , the lunar idea is also unlikely as it is a consequence of other relationships in the station stones which are more likely but that would be way over your head . I never said anything about the azimuth from the centre to the “ barrow “ providing anything close to a standstill or was a reason for it’s build .read what I have written use quotes then refute ,if you can

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      Simple questions still don't work with you do they!

      I THINK THE ANSWER TO THE ONLY QUESTION ASKED WAS:

      NO ROBERT YOU CANT SEE THE MOON SETTING BEHIND THE NORTHERN BARROW FROM THE CENTRE OF STONEHENGE - see simple question simple answer (put the slide rule away it was never required as it is obvious!!)

      Extracting form the noise we find "Where did I ever suggest that the “northern barrow “ was built for the “lunar Lunar standstill (or any other lunar activity) from the centre of Stonehenge "

      I point out it was a direction indicator IN THE BLOG - you said it was a lunar feature: "The moon will set behind the northern station stone from many situations this year it depends where the observer is sited , perspective again"

      The point you keep either MISSING or AVOIDING is if the monument was built for this alignment why construct TWO points to see it - as your suggesting.

      You are in a round circle all you need to do is place the Northern Barrow (and stone) at 317.5 azimuth and you would be correct and I would be wrong.

      BUT THEY DIDN'T !!!

      You have to go the the extremes of the circle - to a second point STONE 91, by the moat and look from that angle - EXPLAIN WHY, you have doubled the work load when you don't need too??

      RJL

      Delete
  27. The sequence of events and phasing (all are 3 )as considered by Cleal et al suggests ; Heel stone ditch dug , there are bluestone fragments close to the bottom the ditch suggesting it is belongs to phase 3 or later . Station stones erected and ditches dug , bluestone in one ditch and another bank and one ditch cutting into Aubrey Hole 19 points to them being later than the Aubrey Holes and roughly contemporary with arrival of bluestones .Circle and trilithons erected The period of time between the Heel stone ditch being dug and the Sarsen circle and Trilithons being erected could have been anything between 50-400 years , not thousands . The erection of the bluestones and sarsens would hardly have helped in any putative astro observations or general direction finding from the centre .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yer

      I wrote a book disproving all that rubbish - we'll go through it a piece at a time...see above question first.

      RJL

      Delete
  28. Here is a very simple test . Go to google earth get the co-ordinates for the centre of Stonehenge , I imagine that may be a bit of a problem for you ,but if you are really stuck I'll let you know , and the "northern barrow " then using the ruler see what the orientation is .There are other methods that are more accurate but that will provide an answer that is far more accurate and reliable than your protractor and archaeo plans with northings that are magnetic .
    Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_standstill and go to Azimuth of full moon ,you will see that 328 is noted in the Major Standstill slot . I think this may be the source of your info . It’s not wrong but it’s not right for Stonehenge , if you read above , it explains it is for a latitude of 55 ,as I explained nearer to Glasgow .
    Mind the wrap on this one http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ILBuYcGASxcC&pg=PA189&lpg=PA189&dq=major+standstill+station+stone+azimuth&source=bl&ots=wAktopcbGf&sig=4FMCOK4ci0hgCtiknBSQQwvD4uk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UFO1T7LXKeOL0AW15siyAg&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=major%20standstill%20station%20stone%20azimuth&f=false .
    Go down the page and look at “Alignments at Stonhenge “ then stations 91-94 which gives an azimuth of 319.6 which is for the Major standstill ,not 328 , my 317.5 is from the centre to the horizon .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      Your really not very good at this!!

      YOU CAN'T SEE THE MOON SETTING BEHIND THE NORTHERN BARROW FROM THE CENTRE OF STONEHENGE - put the slide rule away, Einstein it was never required in the first place as it is obvious!!)

      The point you keep either MISSING or AVOIDING is if the monument was built for the Station Stones alignment, why construct TWO points to see it - as your suggesting.

      If you're are in a round circle all you need to do is place the Northern Barrow (and stone) at 317.5 azimuth and you would be correct and I would be wrong.

      BUT THEY DIDN'T !!!

      You have to go the the extremes of the circle - to a second point STONE 91, by the moat and look from that angle - EXPLAIN WHY, YOU HAVE DOUBLED YOUR WORKLOAD WHEN YOU DID NOT NEED TOO?

      And if your can't then these (barrows) are not astronomical points - they are direction finders as described in the BLOG.

      RJL

      Delete
  29. Read what I have written . Quote and refute if you can . Where did I say that the station stones were built for any intentional alignment , they may have been but I never said they were . My house is aligned on the equinox but the builders didn’t intends that , it is a consequence of being south facing ,the real intention . I said the accuracy was much greater than your general direction idea and there was no precedence for your idea and there was for lunar alignments in monuments , suggesting that if you were searching for some sort of meaning to apply to the these sites the astro idea was more likely .
    Meanwhile it appears you have appreciated that many of the points you were making and figures you had derived from the primitive methodology were obviously wrong .

    "If you're are in a round circle all you need to do is place the Northern Barrow (and stone) at 317.5 azimuth and you would be correct and I would be wrong." whilst you have once again omitted where the 317.5 azimuth might be observed from in relation to the "northern barrow " a similar alignment is found between station stones 91 and and 94 (the "northern barrow )but is closer to 319 .5 is slightly less accurate and the horizon is slightly different too but they are close enough to suggest for some an indication of intention , I don't necessarily believe it so because it a result of another alignment and may simply be fortitous . Whether the station stones were erected with an intention for indicating an astronomical event or in this case events as they also have solar indications is neither here nor there what is important is that the general direction idea is not accurate , has no precedents and is basically unlikely As I ahd pointed out much earlier one of the directions is actaully closer to Marden than Avebury how can you tell that wasn't the case ?
    Good , a case of a genuine quote The reason for the true comment "The moon will set behind the northern station stone from many situations this year , it depends where the observer is sited , perspective again" Does not mean I was suggesting it was a lunar feature , it was simply stating what was obvious , if it is wrong refute it .Because the moon sets behind a feature doesn’t make it a lunar feature , the same applies to your garden shed , I was pointing out how stupid the following question was .
    “So tell us on WHAT DAY or MONTH will the moon set behind the Northern Station Stone? Without an additional , As seen from x it is pretty meaningless .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      Lets try again shall we!

      The point you keep either MISSING or AVOIDING is if the monument was built for the Station Stones alignment, why construct TWO points to see it - as your suggesting.

      If you're are in a round circle (IN THE CENTRE) all you need to do is place the Northern Barrow (and stone) at 317.5 azimuth and you would be correct and I would be wrong.

      BUT THEY DIDN'T !!!

      You have to go the the extremes of the circle - to a second point STONE 91, by the moat and look from that angle - EXPLAIN WHY, YOU HAVE DOUBLED YOUR WORKLOAD WHEN YOU DID NOT NEED TOO?

      And if your can't then these (barrows) are not astronomical points - they are direction finders as described in the BLOG.

      RJL

      Delete
  30. Julien William Parsons knows a bit about barrows , here’s what he says on barrows /tumuli .
    “Barrows are conventionally defined as the mounds of earth or stone constructed in
    antiquity to cover one or more human burials. These constructions have been known by a
    variety of names in England, such as howes, haues, tumps, toots, cops and lows. Cairn is
    a related term employed in upland areas when mounds over burials are constructed of
    stones, although the term can equally apply to mounds created by field clearance.
    Tumulus is preferred by the Ordnance Survey for "earthen mounds either known or
    presumed to be covering buriale' (OS 1963,45), having its origin in the Latin tumere,
    meaning to swell. Amidst this colourful array of available terminology it is the word
    barrow that has been adopted as an umbrella term to cover a range of monuments in the
    English landscape dating from prehistory to the Anglo-Saxon period .”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon

      Well according to CBA its a 'burial mound'. Changed without notification of warning, technically changing the Kings barrows at Stonehenge to the King barrow and a row of empty barrows or is it non-barrows now.

      So technically a new 'LUMP' it can't be a barrow or mound as you have no evidence of a body either-way
      - a right pigs ear. Of course technically, if you bury your dog in a empty mound, it turns back to be a barrow, as they have not defined the word 'human' or 'contemporary' into the wording.

      A total nonsense dreamt up by a gang of brainless numpties!

      RJL

      Delete
  31. Geo

    Geo

    The question will not go away - you have made a claim that the North Barrow is not a direction finder - now you have to prove it... or run away again!

    The point you keep either MISSING or AVOIDING is if the monument was built for the Station Stones alignment, why construct TWO points to see it - as your suggesting.

    If you're are in a round circle (IN THE CENTRE) all you need to do is place the Northern Barrow (and stone) at 317.5 azimuth and you would be correct and I would be wrong.

    BUT THEY DIDN'T !!!

    You have to go the the extremes of the circle - to a second point STONE 91, by the moat and look from that angle - EXPLAIN WHY, YOU HAVE DOUBLED YOUR WORKLOAD WHEN YOU DID NOT NEED TOO?

    And if your can't then these (barrows) are not astronomical points - they are direction finders as described in the BLOG.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  32. What’s wrong , no abuse and no capped wildly mistaken statements . I said a while ago I am not interested in conjecture only pointing out where you are wrong .Middle aged ,middle class, effete bearded baldies are for ever pointing out relationships between components of the monument usually based on some obsession or career skill they think will help clear up the “enigma” , some even providing accurate math and astronomy (the accuracy clearly not applicable to you ) to support their ideas which are usually astronomical , prophetic/religious stuff , showing the “ancients / ancestors “ were actually incredibly sophisticated encoding pi /phi or clues to the advanced civilisation of their ancestors . It’s not even funny any more , most sensible people with an interest and understanding happily ignore it all maybe quoting the odd latest clanger as boring Python fans were wont to do after learning the latest sketches . Can we get back to that another of the class of “You clearly have no idea about the sequencing of Stonehenge - it was added THOUSANDS of years LATER at the time of the SARSEN STONES “ would be good .
    I can no more prove that they are not direction finders than prove they are not astronomical sight lines , Neolithic baldness cures or fairy beacons . Read what I have written if you can find anything that is wrong quote it , don’t make it up or pretend I’m someone else ,then refute it . I never said “ the monument was built for the Station Stones alignment” although anyone who believes so at least has something more concrete and accurate than your idea . There are quite a few accurate metrological and astronomical alignments between the four station stones which adds up to an awful lot more than your whimsy .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GEO

      Success at last!!

      "I can no more prove that they are not direction finders than prove they are not astronomical sight lines"

      We can now move on to question two - as unlike you, I personally can't accept that I don't know, it would mean that I'm stupid as I can't reason out the arguments from the clear evidence. If your happy to be branded so - it's a free world.

      So where are we (and if you answer more quickly last answer took three days and 30 comments) we can answer my question, which you requested:

      “You clearly have no idea about the sequencing of Stonehenge - it was added THOUSANDS of years LATER at the time of the SARSEN STONES “

      So what is agreed

      1. The building of the 'North Barrow' has nothing to do with Moon alignments as it would have been much more efficient and easier building the 'North Barrow' on the line of the point of interest as seen from the natural centre of the Stonehenge circle than build two separate points on the edge of the circle.

      For YOU it was 317.5 degrees as viewed from the centre. As you're interested in the Lunar Standstill - I don't think our ancestors would be!

      QUESTION TWO.

      Why did Stone 91 not have a barrow and moat built around it like the 'north barrow' or 'south barrow' if it was of any importance?

      RJL

      Delete
    2. Do you not read comments ? I said I was not interested in conjectural chats with you . I’m not here to help answer your problems . I’m only interested in pointing out your mistakes . e.g. “This means the original Cro-Magnon's found in Long Barrows are MESOLITHIC .” , "“NOT ONE SINGLE BURIAL (as in a skeleton)is found in an 'undisturbed' Round barrow “ , “It would be impossible to find a barrow not vandalised by Victorian 'archaeologists' etc and anything mentioning astronomy , the protractor and diagram gets better with every reminisce , a kind of Blue Peter nuclear device , that one will be doing the rounds in years to come .
      Most accept that they are clueless about certain aspects of a subject , which doesn’t mean they don’t know or understand the subject . This contrasts with the bumptious , loud mouthed , ill informed , little learning know all approach which we all encounter daily whether it’s how they would could do a better job than some some pro footballer or manager , or running the economy , “explaining “ Neolithic monuments , “sorting out ” crime . Professionals get it wrong but not nearly as much as amateurs and loud mouths .
      It’s your blog , with your comments , many of which remain unanswered , I’m not here to answer your questions .some of which are meaningless or plain daftmainly due to your your lack of understanding of the necessary subjects e.g. “WHAT DAY or MONTH will the moon set behind the Northern Station Stone? “ etc

      A recent one concerning the workload at place like Stonehenge shows a distinct lack of understanding about the motives of the builders “EXPLAIN WHY, YOU HAVE DOUBLED YOUR WORKLOAD WHEN YOU DID NOT NEED TOO? “ as if “workload “ was a problem or consideration at a monument like Stonehenge .

      I will however happily respond to any professed refutations that use actual quotes .
      Read what I said , quote and refute don’t make up “what is agreed “ .Maybe your ancestors weren’t interested in the Lunar standstill but there were obviously others who were . The 317.5 azimuth from the centre was only important in that it pointed out how wrong you were in your 328 degree quote . There are many stones without ditches at the monument including the neglected fourth station stone it doesn’t mean they weren’t “important “ .

      Delete
    3. Geo

      Just as we were making progress..... how disappointing, but yet not surprising.

      You need not "help answer your problems' - I have none, hence the books - your the one with the problems and I'm trying to walk you 'very slowly' through them as you would do with a child explaining the complicated concepts in the simplist of terms as they (like you) struggle to understand the basics of life.

      As with children still learning the art of rational thinking, it is best by example and getting THEM to answer the questions - hoping that eventually the light will go on.

      So we have stumbled on question one it seems - you believe that the additional workload would not be a problem as clearly they are 'stupid'?, underutilised? or what?

      You see you claim to be a 'critic' which is a good process in the development of science, but to be a good critic you need a premise to your argument - saying 'its wrong' without qualification is not be a critic, its being a 'numpty' (as you don't like the word idiot).

      So enlighten us Einstein with your superior critical mind and tell us " WHY WOULD YOU, DOUBLE YOUR WORKLOAD BY HAVING TO FIND, MOVE, DIG A HOLE and PLACE UPRIGHT IN STONEHOLE 91 - WHEN YOU DID NOT NEED TOO?"

      If you get confident you can try question two!! and explain WHY some stones were more important than others - rather than keep stating the bloody obvious!!

      RJL

      Delete
  33. As I had mentioned earlier I don’t want to discuss speculative stuff but as you have provided much entertainment and amusement lately it would be churlish not to respond to one the Station stones v Direction finder idea . I don’t accept the direction case at all and am far from convinced on most of the case for the Station stones

    Station Stones : The stones form a parallelogram , the long sides are within half a metre of each other the short sides 2metres . The astro alignments are
    93-94 =Summer Solstice sunrise . 91-92 = solstice sun set ,
    91 -94 = Major standstill set . 93-92 Major standstill rise , 93-91 = Imbolc and Samhain Cross Quarter sun rises . Similar monuments are not common but angular settings can be found at Kings Arthurs hall Dartmoor many “miniliths “ on Exmoor various quadrangles in Brittany including Crucono which also has astro alignments .

    Heel stone and “Northern and Southern Barrows” : Measuring from the centre of the monument to the “ northern barrow “ provides a direction which is 13.5 degrees off the correct orienatation for Avebury but it is only 9 degrees wrong for an orientation towards Marden site of a large henge that had a large barrow , neither site has any evidence of for settlement . Although only 1.8 miles away the orientation from the centre over the heel Stone to Durrington is 11 degrees off ,the actual orientation is much closer to that of the famous summer solstice sun rise being only wrong by 1.5 degrees . From the centre over the “southern barrow “ the bearing to Old sarum is out by 8.5 degrees .
    When accuracy is considered the station stones are very close and the directions from the centre over the ditched stones are all out from 8 -13 degrees but there was one direction which was close the solstice orientation but this was not considered along with the more accurate bearing to Marden . There are no other recorded monuments with a similar suggested purpose .
    Comparatively the Station stones case for accuracy and intention is clearly more compelling .

    ReplyDelete
  34. Where did I say that I didn’t like the word idiot ?, making things up again . As in much of the last post if you have something to disagree with ,quote then refute ,I don’t do that with you . You certainly show a very limited offensive vocabulary but that is often the case with those who wouldn’t dream of using such language face to face .
    Fwiw and this is the last time I will comment on non factual stuff ,just because it was in caps doesn't make it funny , it has to be a statement . If you think that to “ DOUBLE YOUR WORKLOAD BY HAVING TO FIND, MOVE, DIG A HOLE and PLACE UPRIGHT IN STONEHOLE 91 - WHEN YOU DID NOT NEED TOO?" was really a such big deal for those who dug the ditch , moved and erected the sarsens and were forever taking away and replacing bits of the monument then get up a decent sized hill , minimum 3000 feet ,go for some long walks , starve yourself , take a lot of drugs (but not cocaine , speed or alcohol ) , take your hat off get some air at your brain cells , stop having an agenda , anything to get out of such a constrictive mind set

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      "None of the three monuments are round barrows , what is common to all three are similar ditches . There are no stones atop the northern or southern barrows although there may have been in the past but it is by no means certain . Accepting that there were , how does a hypothetical directionless person orient towards Avebury with just a single stone to direct them i.e. what is the other component required to indicate direction of travel ?"

      FOLLOWED BY WHEN THE QUESTION GOT TOUGH:

      " I said I was not interested in conjectural chats with you "

      SO WHY ASK THE QUESTION IN THE FIRST PLACE?

      This was followed by:

      "was really a such big deal for those who dug the ditch , moved and erected the sarsens and were forever taking away and replacing bits of the monument then get up a decent sized hill"

      Is this not conjecture or do you have proof??

      Then you said:

      "There are no stones atop the northern or southern barrows although there may have been in the past but it is by no means certain"

      Followed by:

      "Station Stones : The stones form a parallelogram , the long sides are within half a metre of each other the short sides 2metres . The astro alignments are
      93-94 =Summer Solstice sunrise . 91-92 = solstice sun set ,
      91 -94 = Major standstill set . 93-92 Major standstill rise , 93-91 = Imbolc and Samhain Cross Quarter sun rises "

      MAKE YOUR BLOODY MIND UP!!

      When the Barrows are Direction finders they do not have Stones on top, when they are your 'parallelogram' they suddenly appear!!

      Geo you are an argumentative contradiction that is constantly accusing others of inaccuracies while completely avoiding answering questions which will show you ideas to be nonsense.

      So I'm taking advice from the first line of your comment here and suggesting that you are without question or for fear of contradiction an complete and utter IDIOT!

      RJL

      Delete
  35. Geo

    That what happens when you criticise someone that knows more than you - you have to withdraw and eat humble pie...keep chewing!

    As for your fantasy of 'parallelograms' the problems lays in the fact that Stone 91 and 93 are not barrows with moats. The barrows and moats SHOWS THESE STONES ARE IMPORTANT.

    But you only have two so why two?

    The fact is that they are of a LATER DATE. No doubt added at the same time the numpties who realised the Heel Stone did not align to the astronomical Solstice, so they leant it over from its original position.

    How do we know they are of an Earlier date?

    THEY HAVE MOATS and the moats are physically connected to the STONEHENGE MOAT - why would you do that UNLESS the moats were FULL of WATER - SIMPLE, YOU WOULDN'T.

    So can we date the Barrows?

    Yes! because we know now know when the Stonehenge moat was FULL OF WATER - how do we know this? - because for it to be full of WATER the ditch would need to be below the GROUNDWATER LEVEL.

    So can we find the date for the groundwater level to be at this height?

    Yes we can because if the GROUNDWATER level was this height in the ditch, it would be the same height outside the ditch that surrounds Stonehenge.

    So can we find evidence of this GROUNDWATER outside the Stonehenge Ditch?

    Yes we can, because at the same height of this GROUNDWATER are four post holes in the car park of Stonehenge that would have laid on the shores of the river Avon at the time the ditch at Stonehenge turned into a MOAT.

    And what data is this?

    The posts are dated between 8500BC to 7500BC. and the water level remained at this height for 3,000 years.

    So at what date were the barrows built?

    The North and South Barrows were built between 8500BC and 5500BC.

    So when was the other 'non-moated' Station Stones added - probably when the SARSEN Stones were added to the Monument.

    The SARSEN stones were added to the monument in 4300BC OVER 1000 YEARS AFTER THE BARROW STONES WERE ERECTED!!!

    How do we know that the SARSEN STONES were erected in 4300BC?

    The AVENUE only lines up with the summer SOLSTICE on that date and by chance a antler Pick was found in the stone filling of one of the SARSEN STONES of the same date.

    NOW THAT'S A QUALIFIED ANSWER, not your pathetic excuses of claiming to be a critic.

    You remind me of an Lehman Bro accountant - adding up your little columns to the x decimal point, at the time of collapse they had over 5,000 accounts, just like you, with your little calculators feeling important about their pathetic decimal points.

    The problem is that none of the FIVE THOUSAND ACCOUNTANTS realised they were BROKE!!!! For they were unable to see THE BIG PICTURE, just like you, so far up their own arse they could no longer see the sun shining!

    What's the point - its like trying to teach quantum mechanics to an ant - you just will not be able to comprehend the facts!!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  36. Robert,

    What do you know of Lake Harrison?

    From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Harrison):

    Lake Harrison is the name given to a huge lake that in parts of the Ice Age covered much of the Midlands in England around Warwick and Birmingham and Leicester. It was formed when ice from Wales and the north blocked the drainage and trapped a lake between the ice front and the Cotswolds. Finally the lake made two overflow courses:

    Southeast across the Fenny Compton Gap through the Cherwell valley into the Thames. This course has been abandoned.

    Southwest. This course became permanent and is now the River Avon which flows into the Severn, whereas before the Ice Age the area drained northeastwards.

    Since the River Avon flows through Salisbury Plain and the Cotswolds extend to Wiltshire, isn't it likely that all of Salisbury Plain was submerged by such a glacier lake?

    It's 'rationally plausible' the Irish Sea Glacier reached Somerset and a little beyond from the West (as most geologists agree) but then created a glacier dam with glacier meltwater filling in this area, including Salisbury Plain. And if that is the case, wont such glacier lake freeze over during the Deep Freeze period around 8500 BC?

    This accepted geological evidence gives credibility to your waterways and my 'local ice surface' covering Salisbury Plain and beyond.

    I think you should do a post on this!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  37. Kostas

    Yes your correct Lake Harrison covered most of central England, during and AFTER the ice age.

    This proves that the groundwater levels were abnormally high and Rivers like the Avon were swollen and much higher than today.

    The problem you will find is that Geologists like Brian and poorly educated archaeologist like Geo will argue that this was an Ice Age Feature that 'disappeared into nowhere' after the last ice age melted about 16,000 years ago.

    Did it make a glacier dam over Stonehenge during the last ice age - I don't know, possibly.

    Did it cause a freezing lake in 8500BC - I don't know probably not!

    If your looking for ice lakes and possible movement of Bluestones from Preseli - I think you looking at the wrong time period. There is Clorine-36 dating of the Bluestones being cut from the natural bedrock at 12,000BC - the waters would have been even higher and the chances of mini Ice Ages that could freeze lakes greater - for more info.

    http://www.louistalboys.com/stonehenge/article2.htm


    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  38. Stuart , dunno if you noticed the reply to your query but Barrow is derived from the Anglo Saxon beorge .The charter below dates from 1055 and refers to a Longam Beorge ,actually Pole’s Wood South .
    http://www.anglo-saxons.net/hwaet/?do=get&type=charter&id=1026
    The Stonehenge “barrows ” are not quite the mounds you may be expecting .The northern one is essentially flat and with the external bank to the ditch has been described as a mini henge .The southern rises to about 0.25 m .The term is retained despite those who use it realising it is a misnomer ,hence the parentheses .

    ReplyDelete
  39. I have repeated much of your post it is quite illogical because of this it looks like it will take up a bit of room .


    Yes, all I’m interested in is pointing out your mistakes . most of what you say is supposition with no evidence but often enough you make comments that are demonstrably wrong ,your avoidance in addressing them is time consuming enough if it was conjecture it would take a lifetime ,plus to be blunt I don’t think a discussion would be very interesting as you are not too bright . Can’t you just accept that ? You then ask “SO WHY ASK THE QUESTION IN THE FIRST PLACE?

    I assume the question is “Accepting that there were , how does a hypothetical directionless person orient towards Avebury with just a single stone to direct them i.e. what is the other component required to indicate direction of travel ?" If so this was asked because in previous post you didn’t indicate where the observer might have been a common omission and all important in understanding what you are trying to say ,this was long before I mentioned anything about wanting to avoid conjectural chats why try to associate them ?

    The next bit you said "was really a such big deal for those who dug the ditch , moved and erected the sarsens and were forever taking away and replacing bits of the monument then get up a decent sized hill"

    Is this not conjecture or do you have proof??

    Where is the conjecture ? are you suggesting that the ditch wasn’t dug or the sarsens erected or stones weren’t moved around and there is no evidence for this ?

    "There are no stones atop the northern or southern barrows although there may have been in the past but it is by no means certain"
    That is simply true .

    When I mentioned the merits of the Station stones alignment I was taking the simplistic view that they were there in the past as I did when I also mentioned the general direction finders “ both are not strictly true but if you had read introduction to the comparison you might have understood the step into conjecture i.e.”As I had mentioned earlier I don’t want to discuss speculative stuff but as you have provided much entertainment and amusement lately it would be churlish not to respond to one the Station stones v Direction finder idea . I don’t accept the direction case at all and am far from convinced on most of the case for the Station stones “ I note you have not mentioned anything about the comparison because if the stone really were where you suggest then you have to face up to the four Station Stones having a more compelling case than the “general direction finders “ .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      I have no problem pointing out my mistakes - in fact I encourage it as the chances of me having ALL THE ANSWERS is mathematically slim - in business at BT we looked to get 7 out of 10 products correct. I expect 30% of my hypothesis is not FULLY correct, but it does mean that 70% is CORRECT!

      Dr Jacob Bronowski tells an interesting tale about John Von Neumann who always sleeped late (like myself) Bronowski was working on a formula that Neumann proposed and Bronowski was sure was incorrect - so one night he worked on this formula to find Neumann was correct so he phoned him about 10am to tell him so and Neumann replied "You woke me up early in the morning to tell me I'm right? Please wait until I'm wrong?"

      Think of me as Neumann - tell me when you think I'm wrong but do it in a professional way and QUALIFY your answer, which can be checked - the notion of the direction is 1.5 dgree NEE off from Durrington Walls does nothing to enhance the discussion. As it is clear no prehistoric civilisation had accurate maps or GPS systems, so seeking such topological accuracy is puerile nonsense.

      This can be observed in the early maps of the Medieval period where local, national and World maps bare no relation to 'Google Earth' but yet they sailed ships throughout the world including America, showing this degree of accuracy is IRRELEVANT and future discussion based to this kind of 'foolishness' will be ignored.

      RJL

      Delete
  40. Anon and RJL, you have lost me. Maybe you guys know each other so well that you can be abusive and laugh about it, leaving bystanders like me on the outside. Perhaps you like to debate, in which case Anon's suggested approach would be easier to follow. Whether Anon is actually Geo Cur I don't know, but I doubt it. Seeing as he does not confess perhaps it is better to look at the arguments in an objective way instead of being personal

    As I see things, RJL has a theory which diverges from conventional wisdom on several points. To appreciate this you have to suspend disbelief and enjoy learning from his evidently wide reading. Anon knows a thing or three about astronomy and barrows - I can learn from him too. By now the two of you are so deep in your silos that the chance of you agreeing on anything, even the time of day, is remote.

    Perhaps we better revert to discussing Kostas new theory about Lake Harrison and then we can concur quickly that it is completely nuts. At least we can agree on this. Please try to find some common ground so we can move forward. Much more of this and I am out of here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris

      Wise words.

      Always happy to debate any point - even Julius Caesar!!

      I apologise Geo For the name calling, but your pedantic nature reminds me of my ex-wife who drove me crazy and into archaeology (long walks on hills far far away).

      I think if we can keep to a 'single' point and not a complete list of half points - then I'm sure we can make progress.

      RJL

      Delete
  41. Chris you write,

    “Perhaps we better revert to discussing Kostas new theory about Lake Harrison ...”

    I can assure you discussing Lake Harrison will be more productive than the endless bickering of Geo and Robert over irrelevancies.

    Let me quote Brian on this,

    Ah -- glacial lakes -- they were everywhere.

    [Could the Irish Sea Glacier encrouching Somerset and Bristol Channel from the West formed an ice-dam restricting meltwater flow?]

    Yes, no reason why not.

    Let me quote Robert on this,

    Yes your correct Lake Harrison covered most of central England, during and AFTER the ice age.

    Did it make a glacier dam over Stonehenge during the last ice age - I don't know, possibly.

    But then you, Chris Johnson, say

    “... and then we can concur quickly that it [Kostas's theory] is completely nuts. At least we can agree on this.”


    So you already claim to have reached agreement between the three of you 'human agency' advocates! But where is the discussion?

    Judgments prior to an open and honest debate are what's called “prejudices”. What excludes ideas and people from a narrow and closed-minded society. I know you don't mean it. But don't practice it either!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      I'm for the human transportation theory for the reason I gave you in an earlier blog, because of the the C-36 dating of 12,000BC.

      I believe this totally dismantles Brian's Glacier Theory as the 'Only One' available to move the Bluestones occurred over 400,000 years ago - and a consistent explanation of how these rocks were not exposed to the atmosphere, with the ice cap around Salisbury melting at about 18,000BC - clearly does not add up.

      RJL

      Delete
  42. As a I’m bit of a fan of Neumann ,I would find that difficult . I have mainly concentrated on quoting comments then giving references to show they are wrong . Or pointing out contradictions . Abuse is a sign of weakness and is also cowardly . I prefer to avoid it .
    The explanation I gave for the two station stones and Heel stone providing a less than accurate indication of direction to their suggested destinations ,showed that the direction to Durrington was much more than 1.5 degrees off ,it’s 11 degrees off quite a bit different and at such a short distance this amount of error makes the idea unlikely .Fwiw as this is all conjecture the Avebury direction would better be described as pointing to Marden the site of a henge with a ditched barrow .

    ReplyDelete
  43. Chris , sorry to disappoint but I did inadvertently post once ,maybe twice , as geocur so yes we are one and the same . I have commented a few times that I have no interest in conjectural discussion as they simply lead to arguments about angles on pin heads , that doesn’t mean I have anything against conjecture which when presented as such is fine e.g. “ Let’s think of Stonehenge as an x “ but “Stonehenge is an x “ with no evidence is something different .
    I just simply point out mistakes and if I have made a mistake then am only too pleased to have it pointed out to me . It may seem pedantic but if it clears stuff up then that’s all I’m interested in . Abuse is fine ,at least from an argumentative point of view , misquoting , making stuff up and abuse are indications that the person delivering them has nothing to say in that particular discussion .

    ReplyDelete
  44. Geo

    If we take one item at a time the direction of the Heel Stone first.

    What makes you believe that 11 degrees is not accurate enough to follow as a general direction? Where the medieval map makers more accurate?

    If you walk in a straight line from that point (which they didn't as they used boats) you would walk past the harbour at Durrington Walls as its within 'seeing' distance of the sight-line.

    Do you not believe this is the best method to judge a 'prehistoric site marker'? If not why??

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  45. Robert,

    What we now have is a sequence of events that provide 'rational plausibility' to my hypothesis of a 'local ice cover' at Salisbury Plain during the making of Stonehenge. This, together with the ability of this hypothesis to provide simple, sensible and consistent explanations to all the 'facts on the ground', makes my 'natural agency' theory credible for serious consideration.

    The exact pinpointing in the last 20K years of when these events occured is not all that important to my theory. Though I can understand why these dates are crucially important to you and others. We have,

    1) The encroachment of the Irish Sea Glacier from the NW along the SW coast of the UK and Bristol Channel, creating ice-dams and obstracting the flow of meltwater.

    2) The melting of the glaciers over land, forming many vast 'glacier lakes', including at Salisbury Plain I argue.

    3) The Deep Freeze period of the Younger Dryas lasting some 1300 years with the consequent freezing of these glacier lakes. Thus creating the 'local ice cover' I am hypothesizing.

    4) The calfing of megaliths by glaciers, dumping these 'ice packs' unto the frozen surface of these glacier lakes. (Thus justifying the coefficient of friction I used in my calculations)*

    5) The 'natural transport' of these megaliths packed in glacier ice on the hard smooth flat ice surface of frozen glacier lakes; acted on by natural forces of wind and water. (Note: a 60 mph wind will exert a 660 N force per square meter; a 3 ton megalith, for example, on a hard smooth flat ice surface can be moved by a 540 N force acting on it)

    The 'natural transport' I describe above agrees well with all the geological evidence of glaciation we have. No need to pick a fight with geologists as to the extend of glaciation in the SW UK and the lack of evidence for glaciation at Salisbury Plain. Brian's Achilles Heel that just wont heal!

    Truth is a hard pill to swallow sometimes. But only Lies can suffocate people.

    * http://www.theFacultyPublishingGroup.com/Archeology/Stonehenge%20Problem%20B.pdf

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Number 5 - "these megaliths packed in glacier ice"

      Reminds me of captain Birds eye and his fish fingers.

      How did water get all the way around the Megalith to separate it into a ice lump (fish finger)?

      Dr Stuart Love

      Delete
    2. Robert,

      Why am I having such a hard time in your blog entering URL links that actually work? Can you please look into it or instruct us how to include these in our comments?

      The URLs in my last comment:
      http://www.theFacultyPublishingGroup.com/Archeology/Stonehenge%20Problem%20B.pdf

      http://www.theFacultyPublishingGroup.com/Archeology/The%20un-Henging%20of%20Stonehenge(Ragazas%20-%2003102010).pdf

      Kostas

      Delete
    3. Dr Stuart,

      Always a 'challenge' to respond to your comments! You write,

      “How did water get all the way around the Megalith to separate it into a ice lump”

      Water did not get all the way around the Megalith to separate it into an ice lump! The advancing glacier mass did that! This is how megaliths are entrained. Such 'ice lumps' (megaliths packed in glacier ice) can be dumped on land or, I argue, on the surface of a frozen glacier lake.

      This is no different from all the accepted mechanisms in glaciology of how glaciers behave. Brian some few months ago even suggested the Irish Sea Glacier transported the entire 'bluestones quarry' to Salisbury Plain! But his theory froze up by the lack of glacier advance a Plain too far! My frozen glacier lakes (Robert's frozen waterways) do not suffer from such shortcomings!

      Kostas

      Delete
  46. First , I should point out that this is conjecture ,which I have said I am unwilling to go into . But fwiw here is some idle .opinion . I already highlighted some points showing an alternative to some of the monuments discussed and suggest they have a better when looking for some purpose . 1) the metrological and astronomical associations of the station stones which showed there was compelling evidence for some sort of geometric organisation which included indicating a point that is very close to the centre of the monument , 2 sides that are on the same bearing and equidistant to within half a metre of each other ,the other 2 sides are within 2 metres and also similar orientation the relationship between the sides have multiple solar and lunar alignments that were relatively accurate , there are also similar monuments found elsewhere also with astro associations .
    2 ) The directions associated with the three ditched monuments as seen from the centre of the monument .None actually point to where has been suggested . If they are inaccurate how can you even tell where they were supposed to be pointing towards ? There are no other examples of any similar monument that have shown to be general or accurate direction pointers anywhere from the period. We have no reason to believe that is what they are .why imagine that because they have ditches indicates a common purpose and that purpose is to be seen from the centre of the monument “ pointing “ ? There are plenty of ditched monuments , are they also pointers , where are the stones associated wit them and where do you view the direction from ?. Archaeoastronomers do this all the time , they find an indication from say, the centre of a monument over a prominent feature if it is not pointing to something obvious from the Thom paradigm i.e. a major solar or lunar event they will choose a stellar object basically something is bound to fit the bill , but there is no reason to believe that this was the intention of the builders . If it is accurate you might have a better argument . In both examples you have to argue the case for the intention of the builders , why should a general direction pointer even be considered ? . Even ethnographically where are the similar examples ? What you do get in some societies is way marking i.e. cairns or larger rocks along the route , never collectively in a straight line but from one convenient point in the landscape to the next problematic choice of direction . In short where are the other examples , how can you tell that these monuments are direction finders .Long winded but necessary to show it is not as simple saying that they are inaccurate .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      Why are you unwilling to justify your comments?

      And why can't you stick to the point, rather than bring numerous other associated references to a simple question?

      You claim to be a critic, but you lack a critics ability to analyse the facts and give a coherent answer - you 'mumble' about everything but the subject matter!!

      within the extensive text you claim

      "There are no other examples of any similar monument that have shown to be general or accurate direction pointers anywhere from the period." - the blog (if you ever bother to read it) shows a map of the same period with other 'direction finders' known as barrows from Old Sarum to Danbury'.

      As for Prehistoric accuracy _ I will quote you a passage from Julius Caesar's conquest of Gaul as Chris will testify (as he is current reading this book) he notes to the best of Roman's mapping skills that:

      "The island is triangular, with one side facing Gaul. One corner of this side, on the coast of Kent, this is the landing-place for nearly all the ships from Gaul and points east; the lower corner points south. The length of this side is about 475 miles, THE OTHER FACES WEST TOWARDS SPAIN, in this direction is Ireland..... Midway across is the Isle of Man, and it is believed that there are also some smaller islands, in which according to some writers there is a month of perpetual darkness at the winter solstice.

      Not even close let allow only being 11 degrees out!

      In comparison the pointer from Stonehenge to Durrington Walls is as accurate as you could expect in prehistory - unless you have evidence to prove otherwise??

      SORRY CHRIS - I've tried to be 'civil' and get Geo to talk sense, but I feel his has a form of 'Obsessive-compulsive neurosis' which manifests itself in the pedantic nature (like my ex-wife) which clearly interferes with his rationale and interpretation of prehistoric sites and artefacts.

      RJL

      Delete
    2. In my expert opinion, the subject known as "Geo" is suffering from "CAPITAL AVERSION" this unknown condition is due to the subject being attacked by CAPITAL LETTERS as a child.

      My analysis could be wrong, which in this case, we would need to conclude that the subject was indeed a complete "FRUITCAKE".

      Sigmund Freud

      Delete
  47. i presented you with some conjectural stuff that at least stands up to the evidence ,unlike yours . I have no need to justify or care to , just idle conjecture but more accurate than yours .
    Why not respond to the facts in the comments ? Just as in the refusal to mention the great number of stone circles that can be seen from sea ,why not point out any accepted direction finders from the period and not those that you alone believe to be so ? In the examples that you imagine why not simply give a ref rather than have me wade through pages of conjecture and errors ? The station stones alignments and many other similar examples show that the builders of these monuments were perfectly capable of accuracy , the kind of inaccuracy that you are suggesting as the norm is demeaning and the suggestion of purpose totally lacking in evidence .
    Seeing as you like it simple here’s one of many , simply respond . This was part of longer post posted twice but never seen or acknowledged as blocked .

    “The North and South Barrows were built between 8500BC and 5500BC .”

    No evidence again to support this but there is evidence to show that one , or both if they are as is likely , contemporaneous . The “south barrow cut Aubrey Hole 19 as Cleal points out quoting Hawley ” this conclusively shows that the Aubrey Holes had been emptied before the trench was made ,possibly a long time before and the position of the hole not suspected “.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      You have presented nothing but rhetoric. You claim to be a critic but lack a critics ability to produce a logical premise for your arguments - you may as well claim Kostas' 'rational plausibility', for like Kostas you give us no 'evidence' just the benefit of your 'opinion'.

      I have shown from extracts from Julius Caesar and evidence of Medieval maps being beyond your 11 degrees of accuracy. This proves prehistoric directions are based on generalities not specifics to the nearest decimal point.

      TRY TO respond with a 'single' fact - that's one (1) if your confused - and we can then analyse it, to see if your are indeed correct.

      Carry on 'rambling' and we will get nowhere.

      RJL

      Delete
  48. Another recent response posetd twice .This is another example of a simple statement with compound errors .Stick to facts and quotes and refute .
    “The AVENUE only lines up with the summer SOLSTICE on that date and by chance a antler Pick was found in the stone filling of one of the SARSEN STONES of the same date.”

    You do not date monuments from archaeoastronomical data , even archaeoastronomers know that , although there are plenty of alt archaeo nut jobs who would .You must have read that info somewhere as you couldn’t possibly have calculated it yourself with your methodolgy . Typically no mention of a sighting point down the Avenue , was it from the centre of the monument , the heel stone ,the middle of the Avenue ? Unfortunately also misleading , if the solstice observation was considered accurate for 4300 BC when the declination would have been 28.38 ,a thousand years later it would have been 28.34 , hardly worth talking about .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      The reason I did not respond is because the comment is meaningless!

      "You do not date monuments from archaeoastronomical data" Absolute nonsense. If you build a monument to appreciate something in particular, such as the Summer Solstice, of course you can use it to date the site - not to do so is beyond comprehension.

      As for you sad 'schoolboy' attempts to calculate 'precession' Mr Shearing we had this conversation last year, which shows your lack of knowledge.

      http://robertjohnlangdon.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/stone-me-druids-are-looking-wrong-way.html?showComment=1308403036649#c7442423822318161967

      RJL

      Delete
  49. Interesting that the Anon's signed as Freud , Einstein and Sherlock ,never respond to facts ,only manage to be rude and use caps ,a common denominator ?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anyone who knows anything archaeoastronomy accepts that you do not do so . If you did then the you would get data like the centre of the monument at Stonehenge over the Heel Stone would have been built sometime in the future i.e post 2012 AD when it would be accrate . Dating can help show that alignments are accurate or possibly intentional not the other way round . It’s only the alt.arcaheo crowd and nut jobs who do this . You have already shown a depth of ignorance about astronomy with many of your comments , why not produce figures instead of cheap jibes . I am not mr. Shearing , this is another of your delusional fantasies .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      At last some real information...well done.

      "If you did then the you would get data like the centre of the monument at Stonehenge over the Heel Stone would have been built sometime in the future i.e post 2012 AD when it would be accrate"

      So your stating you ignore the fact the Heel Stone Solstice sunrise does not appear from over the (centrally) full upright mounted stone for this event as it would be inaccurate, for the archaeologists who do not have any answers for this simple paradox.

      I would give a better and more rational solution without unprovable excuses:

      The Heel Stone was not constructed for the Summer Solstice hence the poor alignment.

      "Dating can help show that alignments are accurate or possibly intentional not the other way round .It’s only the alt.arcaheo crowd and nut jobs who do this . "

      What on earth does that mean in English?

      " You have already shown a depth of ignorance about astronomy with many of your comments , why not produce figures instead of cheap jibes ."

      Figures for what exactly??

      "I am not mr. Shearing , this is another of your delusional fantasies ."

      Anyone who wishes to look at the construction of your sentences, the lack of coherence in your English and the obsession with astro-alignments, may disagree.

      RJL

      Delete
  51. I mentuioned that you had read that info about the solstice and were unable to calculate it yourself , let us see your figures and I'll show you how you are mistaken .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      Perhaps you are confused by azimuth and declination.

      Most 'normal' people would look at the sunrise on the horizon - at that point place a marker such as a stone at that point. This will have the effect of the Sun appearing first from 'behind the stone'.

      So the azimuth position in relation to the visible horizon is the only reading required. In this case the declination is disregard (as your maths) as it is immaterial and unnecessary.

      RJL

      Delete
  52. To say that the Heel stone is a direction finer is not a fact , as is saying it isn’t .These are opinions and as I have stated I don’t want to waste time talking about opinions , but you can put a case which I have done . Some opinions are stated as facts but can be shown to be wrong e.g. “““NOT ONE SINGLE BURIAL was ever found at the base of a round barrow “ or when amended to “NOT ONE SINGLE BURIAL (as in a skeleton)is found in an 'undisturbed' Round barrow “ all that is need to show that this opinion is wrong is to produce evidence of one example that refutes , there are many but here are two
    http://www.ancientmonuments.info/en21097-round-barrow-350m-east-of-callis-wold-farm
    http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=59616 .
    These are facts not opinions .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      Ask for justification on accuracy of directions - you produce articles on barrows and burials.

      As you are unable to supply any evidence to support your claim "it’s 11 degrees off quite a bit different and at such a short distance this amount of error makes the idea unlikely ."

      Or to disprove my evidence - can we take it for granted (as your changing the subject) you are WRONG?

      RJL

      Delete
  53. Robert you write,

    You [Geo] have presented nothing but rhetoric. You claim to be a critic but lack a critics ability to produce a logical premise for your arguments - you may as well claim Kostas' 'rational plausibility', for like Kostas you give us no 'evidence' just the benefit of your 'opinion'.

    You keep raising my name intentionally to keep me contributing to your blog to keep your blog controversial to keep your readers coming back for more red meat!

    Let me list some 'evidence' in my arguments:

    1)the glaciers melted raising sea levels and creating vast 'glacier lakes'
    2)the Irish Sea Glacier, advancing from the W and NW, encroached on the SW and Bristol Channel coastlines of the UK; possibly forming ice-dams restricting meltwater flow into the Irish Sea
    3)there is no irrefutable evidence that glaciers advanced as far as Salisbury Plain
    4)there was a sustained freezing period lasting some 1300 years during the Younger Dryas
    5)water freezes when temperature drops below freezing
    6)the coefficient of friction for 'ice over ice' is very small and gets even smaller under certain conditions, like ice curling.
    7)A 60 mph wind exerts a 660 N force per square meter
    8)a 3 ton megalith on a hard flat smooth ice surface can be moved by a 540 N force acting on it
    9)advancing glaciers can entrain megaliths and carry these for long distances
    10)ice holes in an ice cover can form for a variety of different reasons (see Brian's recent post for some new amazing evidence of that! http://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2012/05/new-phenomenon-causes-concern-methane.html )

    I'll stop! Having reached the Biblical count!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      I agree, you have more evidence to your claims than Geo - as Geo has no evidence!

      RJL

      Delete
  54. This is in reply to a couple of posts .
    No, I understand exactly what azimuth and declination mean , it is you who had a problem exemplified with the use of the oxymoronic term “azimuth declination “ .
    The mention of declination was to point out how your ““The AVENUE only lines up with the summer SOLSTICE on that date and by chance a antler Pick was found in the stone filling of one of the SARSEN STONES of the same date.” Was wrong .
    Why not produce figures to support your claims ?

    When did I say that the heel stone was an accurate pointer toward the solstice , as seen from the circle centre ? It is however more accurate at that more difficult job than that of pointing to Durrington .

    “As you are unable to supply any evidence to support your claim "it’s 11 degrees off , quite a bit different and at such a short distance this amount of error makes the idea unlikely ." I note you have never provided any figure to suggest otherwise ,maybe you can actually come up with one .Of course it would be quite difficult for you calculate something so simple by your methodology . There are a number of ways to show that the bearing from the centre of the monument towards over the Heel stone is 11 degrees out .1) on a large scale map find the initial bearing then compare with the actual bearing to Durrington ,then using a protractor measure the angle ,crude but effective . 2) Use google earth or any digital mapping programme like “memory map “ and compare the difference 3) Use geodesic programs inputting accurate info for each of the sites .
    Why not face up to the glaring error as pointed out in ““NOT ONE SINGLE BURIAL” nonsense and then we can move on to the next one ?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Geo

    See my blog about 'the inconveient truth' that goes into this at some depth, unlike your accusations.

    http://robertjohnlangdon.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/stonehenge-enigma-incovenient-truth.html

    "I note you have never provided any figure to suggest otherwise ,maybe you can actually come up with one"

    Why on earth would I come up with a figure? - its meaningless!

    FROM YESTERDAY

    "If you walk in a straight line from that point (which they didn't as they used boats) you would walk past the harbour at Durrington Walls as its within 'seeing' distance of the sight-line."

    Any sane or normal person would judge that a straight line of direction in which you pass the point of interest so close you can see it - is reliably a good general direction.

    Sadly, you then you go back into irrellivent 'ramble mode' talking about maps and google earth.

    Guess what Geo?

    Prehistoric man never had OS maps or Google Earth. So to measure their competence by such devices clearly shows you are incapable of judging these matters.

    "a wise man, follows a pointed finger, the fool stares at the finger"

    Guess we all know where your staring!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  56. I have a lot of difficulty with this theory about signposts except perhaps a secondary symbolism. Stonehenge is not easy to see from a distance. A society with a primary concern for navigation markers designed to last millennia would surely have built its navigation markers in locations that were easy to see. Anyone walking or driving to Stonehenge knows that the monument pops out of the landscape when you are close enough to need no further direction, and not before.

    I recently spent some time wandering around Glandy Cross where the circle, imo, is deliberately obscure. A few hundred yards east and you would be on the north-south ridgeway with a splendid view to the east. A few hundred yards North and you would be on a summit with a grand view to the west, including Carn Meini. The Glandy Cross circle site seems deliberately chosen to be relatively obscure. The same goes for many long barrows I have visited. Robert's pictures at the top of this thread give a quite different impression a-typical even.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris

      They did - They are called Long Barrows 100m long of pure white chalk, you would see them by boat from miles away including a full moon night.

      When the Waters receded they then used the Round Barrow - the design changed as they did not need extra long markers (overkill) so small white chalk markers were employed.

      Proof of both theories is the paradox of the alignment of the Long Barrow - does not face in any certain direct - except it does, when you raise the water level to 90m in the area around Stonehenge EVERY long barrow is 'longways on to the waterways - the mathematical probability of this is over 1 million to 1.

      The proof of the round barrow is shown in just one case in this blog with accompanying map.

      If current archaeology had such comprehensive evidence I would understand the debate - but as Geo is proving all the traditionalist have is 'opinion' that does not stand up to scrutiny.

      RJL

      Delete
  57. Evading the point again you asked for evidence "As you are unable to supply any evidence to support your claim "it’s 11 degrees off quite a bit different and at such a short distance this amount of error makes the idea unlikely ." .
    I supplied the evidence now you supply a refutation .
    The builders of these Neolithic monuments were skilled and capable of including astronomical alignments into passage graves never mind open air monuments ,if they wanted to be accurate in direction pointing they would have done a lot better than the putative suggestion .
    Meanwhile not one scrap of evidence or refutation to show that figure wrong or face up to the errors in "The AVENUE only lines up with the summer SOLSTICE on that date and by chance a antler Pick was found in the stone filling of one of the SARSEN STONES of the same date.” and "“NOT ONE SINGLE BURIAL was ever found at the base of a round barrow “ .There are plenty others .I'll look at that blog entry later ,I imagine it will be conjecture with a few erors .
    BTW . How many times do I have to say that I am not Colion Shearing

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      LIST THE EVIDENCE!!

      Your words "I supplied the evidence now you supply a refutation " is not evidence.

      I have shown you the blog with the evidence as request - YOU HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO THE BLOG - so how can I refute your evidence, you have not supplied any!!

      All you do is delay and distract to other subjects - if you have evidence then submit it one item at a time so we can all see it and it can be answered.

      RJL

      Delete
    2. Furthermore

      "The builders of these Neolithic monuments were skilled and capable of including astronomical alignments into passage graves never mind open air monuments ,if they wanted to be accurate in direction pointing they would have done a lot better than the putative suggestion ."

      IS THIS YOUR EVIDENCE???

      you are talking about ASTRONOMICAL ALINEMENT'S which is FUNDAMENTALLY different from TOPOLOGICAL ALINEMENT'S. You need to prove that Neolithic Men had a better topological knowledge of both Roman and Medieval societies - for that is what your claiming!!

      RJL

      Delete
  58. As you are unable to supply any evidence to support your claim "it’s 11 degrees off quite a bit different and at such a short distance this amount of error makes the idea unlikely ."
    Surely pointing how to discover that the bearing is indeed 11 degrees off is evidence .Are you questioning this ? .What more do you want ? Can you show it is not 11 degrees off ?Meanwhile not bit of data or response to any of the errors .Here's another ““It would be impossible to find a barrow not vandalised by Victorian 'archaeologists'” All that is needed to refute that is to mention one , but there are very many more , e.g. Pitnacree excavation report ,untouched prior to the 60’s excavation .By now I realise you will not reply to this but come up with yet another smoke screen .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. STOP PRESS!!!!!!!

      Just checked your maths on Google Earth - and as suggested previously - you can even get the basics right

      Heel Stone 51.28 degrees
      Durrington Walls Northern Bank is 57.71 degrees

      Difference 6.43 degrees

      YOU CAN'T EVEN GET YOUR OBSESSIVE MATHS CORRECT !!

      To give everyone an idea of how pathetic your arguments are - that's equivalent to THREE FINGERS at arms length

      CLOSE ENOUGH I THINK!!

      RJL

      Delete
  59. You mentioned the long barrows around Stonehenge. These seem to be aligned on either the east or west end of the cursus. So how does the cursus fit into all this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris

      There is a Long Barrow to the East of the Cursus that can be seen on a map on this blog:

      http://robertjohnlangdon.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/stukeleys-drawing-points-way.html

      The river divides the land of the living to the land of the afterlife - hence your dead body goes in to the long barrow in the East and then the soul travels to the land of the dead/elders in the west (sun set) and a barrow with Stone (direction marker).

      You can find more Mesolithic Maps on the book's official site under the book called 'Pictures'.

      http://www.abc-publishing-group.co.uk/prehistoric_britain/html/index.html

      RJL

      Delete
  60. OK children, its time to move on!

    Let's discuss the 'glacier lake' over Salisbury Plain which froze solid during the Big Freeze and formed my hypothesized 'local ice cover'. Then we can discuss the natural transport of megaliths over this ice surface and the formation of 'ice holes'. See Brian's recent post on new evidence of that!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      I couldn't agree with you more - now that Geo has been completely discredited and blown out of the water, it is my friend - time to move on!

      I will publish a new blog later today.

      RJL

      Delete
  61. So after all the bluff you didnt't even know or try ,until this attempt ,you also had continued going on about me not supplying evidence when I had mentioned the 11 degrees error on Monday May 14 , 7 days ago .
    Clearly you don't know where the centre of the monument or you wouldn't get that bearing plus The Durrington point was the centre ,centre to centre ,try again you'll find it to be 11 degrees out .Then try Avebury and you'll see that is out by 13.5 also mentioned 7 days ago .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      So the error on Woodhenge you now recognise as 'tiny' in fact just three fingers of error and now you want to try you luck on Avebury?

      Sorry to say your credibility is 'shoot'!

      You evidence was this sad 11 degrees, even if correct, is quite a ridiculous small margin of error (width of a fist at arms length) if correct to find that you can't even do the maths correctly and it was six degrees or three fingers which even modern sign fitters using GPS would be happy as a result.

      I can't be bothered check the rest of you faulty maths Colin, as I did the same last year with the same results. You're just wasting my time. We are moving on as request.

      RJL

      Delete
  62. The error of 11 degrees was to Durrington , centre to centre ,if you look at Woodhenge it is even greater centre to centre is 17 degrees out .

    ReplyDelete
  63. Have a look at http://www.britannia.com/history/preseli_blue.html .This is something written by the real Colin Shearing .I had a look at your discussion with Colin and once again you had got it wrong it's not precession that “ moves the midsummer sunset “ it’s obliquity .

    “precession moves the midsummer sunset by 1 whole degree over 4000 years “ Which makes a nonsense of ,
    “The AVENUE only lines up with the summer SOLSTICE on that date and by chance a antler Pick was found in the stone filling of one of the SARSEN STONES of the same date.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo/Anon/Colin - whatever you wish to call yourself.

      THE POINT is that the margin is too small to be called a PROBLEM - If your SO DESPERATE to look at minor differences the you have lost the argument. AS A GENERAL DIRECTION POINT IT IS ESTABLISHED TO BE ACCURATE as we have shown empirical evidence that at a later date less accurate information was considered acceptable.

      If you wish to discuss the Avenue then do so on the correct blog page.

      For the last time - MOVE ON - all other comments on this blog page will be ignored, as its over 100 comments long and unworkable.

      RJL

      Delete