Tim Darvill's calendar. Magli and Belmonte don't believe a word of it........
This is a direct attack on Tim Darvill's recent article about the Stonehenge "calendar" -- also published in Antiquity journal. But the article is behind a paywall -- so there is no way that we can check it out unless we belong to the privileged few......... but we do have a press release that tells us what the article is all about. It is mercifully free of purple prose -- but nonetheless, this is a perfect illustration of the point I made the other day in proposing another Razor designed to uphold academic standards.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/abs/archaeoastronomy-and-the-alleged-stonehenge-calendar/9C48576CAF5B1DBCEED2A0F5F868F34E
Abstract
In a recent Antiquity article, Darvill (2022) proposed that the mid third-millennium BC Stage 2 sarsen settings of Stonehenge (comprising the Trilithon Horseshoe, Sarsen Circle and the Station Stone Rectangle) were conceived in order to represent a calendar year of 365.25 days—that is, a calendar identical in duration to the Julian calendar. In the present article, the authors argue that this proposal is unsubstantiated, being based as it is on a combination of numerology, astronomical error and unsupported analogy.
Here is the Press Release:
Stonehenge: a new study by Politecnico di Milano unveils one of the mysteries surrounding the archaeological site
Stonehenge is still attracting the attention of scholars and researchers more than four millennia after its building. An academic study by Politecnico di Milano has proposed a scientific explanation of Stonehenge's original function - debunking some current theories about the mysterious monument from the Neolithic period.
One of the most recent theories to be debunked is that Stonehenge is a giant calendar based on a numerological interpretation of Egyptian and Julian calendars with 365 days and 12 months of the year. According to professors Giulio Magli of Politecnico di Milano and Professor Juan Antonio Belmonte of Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias and Universidad de La Laguna in Tenerife, this assertion is incorrect.
In their article, published in Antiquity, one of the most prestigious scientific journals in archaeology, the authors demonstrate that the theory is based on a series of forced interpretations of the monument's connections to astronomy.
Firstly, Magli and Belmonte analysed the astronomical element. Although the solstice alignment is accurate, the authors show that the slow movement of the sun on the horizon on days close to the solstices makes it impossible to ascertain the correct functioning of the supposed calendar, as the structure, made up of huge stones, should be able to distinguish very precise positions, less than 1/10 of a degree.
Secondly, they analysed the numerology. Attributing meanings to numbers on a monument is always a risky procedure. In this case, a key number of the supposed calendar, namely 12, can not be found in any element of Stonehenge, nor can any means of accounting for the additional intercalary day every four years. While other numbers are not taken into account - the Stonehenge portal, for example, was made of two stones.
Finally, they looked at the cultural patterns. An early elaboration of the 365-day plus one calendar is documented in Egypt only two millennia after Stonehenge (and came into use centuries later). Therefore, although the people who built it took the calendar from Egypt, they perfected it themselves. Furthermore, they also invented a structure to keep track of time, as nothing similar ever existed in ancient Egypt. Finally, a transfer and elaboration of notions with Egypt that took place around 2600 BC have no archaeological basis.
"All in all, the supposed Stonehenge Neolithic solar calendar is a purely modern construct, with a poor archaeoastronomical and calendrical basis. As repeatedly happened in the past. For example, with the claims (proven untenable by modern research) that Stonehenge was used to predict eclipses, the monument reverts to its role as a mute witness to the sacred landscape of its builders, a role which - Magli and Belmonte stress - in no way detracts from its extraordinary fascination".
12 comments:
So Stonehenge was probably a clock, and the egg-shaped Woodhenge together with Durrington Walls' Southern circle - also egg-shaped - are wristwatches. My stomach aches from laughing.
Darville's picturesque offering has an axis that should align with the brass strip placed by archaeologists alongside the Heel Stone, marking Stonehenge's Primary axis. It does not. And both cannot be right!
There you go then.
The brass strip alongside the Heel stone owes its accuracy in no small measure to me for having taught archaeologists how to make folded tracings to find the axis of symmetry and alignment of a monument. The first to be told was the OU in 2008. So there you go, then.
Damn, but I wish I was clever, anyway, watch this space before you go then.
I know, I know, no one likes those who are so sure of themselves. Take, for instance, Cassius Clay and Elvis. Me? I know my geometry. I can also recognise archaeologists' Red Herrings when I see them.
I was given a book on Geometry but I didn't read it, however minor problem is that your Geometry may not be the Geometry used by the Neolithic people.
I didn't know Elvis was an archaeologist, and is red herring a Russian Kipper?
Tom, I was an enthusiastic volunteer at the Avebury Keiller Museum around 12 years ago and remember you from back then. I say "enthusiastic " as I drove around 25 miles each way to get to Avebury. You had a book for sale.
1. Archaeologists left the problem of Neolithic geometry to Professor Alexander Thom, and I am only just discovering how corrupt it is. Don't worry; I have managed to correct most of it on my website.
2. I have several books and booklets deposited in the six major libraries, but none are for sale due to poor grammar. So, instead, I got on with geometry, which I am good at. Unfortunately, only one of my books was ever reviewed, and that one was criticised for being too accurate. It did not sell.
So now, after 15 years of reading lots of books to improve my grammar, I'm back.
I have always stayed well clear of all this geometry stuff -- there is enough to keep me occupied anyway. But is the root of the problem the fact that none of the stones is located exactly where it should be, so people tend to create regular patterns which impose order and regularity where there is actually something akin to chaos? So the pattern that I see is not necessarily the same pattern as you see? Just thinking aloud.....
Professor Alexander Thom did not resolve his Megalithic Yard with any of the stone circle surveys presented in his book "Megalithic Sites in Britain" because he failed to accept that stone circles are internal devices.
Therefore, his corrupt geometry incorrectly passes through the center of the stones.
This error, almost certainly deliberate, enabled me to produce correct versions and place them on my (almost impossible to find) website.
So the establishment need not worry. Their closely guarded secrets remain safe!
Brian. Unraveling the chaos should start with determining why Professor Thom measured Woodhenge undersize and stone circles oversize. I can prove these facts, and archaeologists need to address them to be trusted with the hypothesis of Stonehenge and the bluestone transport. As for digging more stuff up, no way!
Post a Comment