tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post3464300671482251939..comments2024-03-28T14:00:12.372+00:00Comments on Stonehenge and the Ice Age: The Cursus Great PitsBRIAN JOHNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-74289152897568895362016-04-29T07:43:24.447+01:002016-04-29T07:43:24.447+01:00I was once given a thorough telling-off on this si...I was once given a thorough telling-off on this site by a fellow conmmentator for introducing my allegedly barmy ideas into otherwise focused topic discussions. Far be it from me to repeat the crime a second time. Suffice it to say that the approximate east-west orientation of the Cursus, with a tilt towards the south-east, might have been decided upon by an unknown Neolithic site surveyor for an entirely different reason. It was to do with efficient disposal of the dead, not requiring burial or cremation (both of those being problematical we're told by the knowledgeable Ken West). It's all set out on my sciencebuzz site posted just a couple of days ago. Some here might describe it as a flight of fancy, correction, scores, maybe hundreds of flights each day, most coming probably from the direction of the south/south-east...<br /><br />http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/might-stonehenge-have-been-designed-as.html<br /><br />Nuff said.<br /><br />Colin Berrysciencebodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12051016731274875332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-31093258303935896232013-09-03T16:42:01.352+01:002013-09-03T16:42:01.352+01:00An alignment that worked several thousand years ag...<i>An alignment that worked several thousand years ago would be off by several tens of degrees. Or am I missing something? </i><br /><br />If the alignment is to stars, then that could be correct: Our axis 'wobbles' by 22.5 to 24.5 degrees and it also rotates. So potentially the position of a star could be 49 degrees different. Because of the way we view alignments at the horizon, the effect of this change could be to modify the viewed angle by anything between 0 and more than 49 degrees.<br /><br />However, if we're talking about the sun or the moon, it's a different story because our axis is defined by rotation about the sun (and the moon by its rotation about us). So in the sun's case, the actual change in angle is only the difference between the 'wobbles': ie about 2 degrees. This works out as an alignment change of up to about 4 degrees depending on when the alignment occurs.<br />Jon Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264966739582178631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-67252187488902222752012-09-21T07:41:14.737+01:002012-09-21T07:41:14.737+01:00Thanks Grant -- I fear that this is not a field of...Thanks Grant -- I fear that this is not a field of expertise for me. But my impression is that the astro-archaeology people do know about these gradual shifts of axis and have built all this into their models.BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-87467388261523400342012-09-21T01:36:58.416+01:002012-09-21T01:36:58.416+01:00I just stumbled across your site. One thing that h...I just stumbled across your site. One thing that has always puzzled me about the so-called alignments of certain stones with the position of the sun or other celestial bodies at solstices, equinoxes, and other "special" occasions, is that the Earth's pole of rotation changes by about 1 degree every 71.6 years. An alignment that worked several thousand years ago would be off by several tens of degrees. Or am I missing something?Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00570225647762012750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-1851260967415787882011-12-30T17:07:56.351+00:002011-12-30T17:07:56.351+00:00GeoCur & Alex Gee
I now find, by trawling the...GeoCur & Alex Gee<br /><br />I now find, by trawling the keywords haul for CHARLY FRENCH; McBURNEY; GEOARCHAEOLOGY; etc, etc that:-<br /><br />The founder of the McBurney Laboratory for Geoarchaeology, one Charles McBurney, had an interest in rock art and cave archaeology. Charly French also is involved with cave archaeology.Tony Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-5046605286140690702011-12-30T16:51:40.486+00:002011-12-30T16:51:40.486+00:00I think it may help to point out just how simple i...I think it may help to point out just how simple it is show how the Brum idea is flawed without resorting to too many figures , astronomy or trig . One point we can be sure is the midway point between the two pits as this is said to be due south of the centre of Stonehenge and obviously at some point on the cursus between the two ditches .Once that is established we can then calculate either the point of the eastern or western pit(s) as they are supposed to be on the alignment of the solstice sun set and rise circa 3100 BC . The eastern one is simplest as according to the now removed maps the pit did indeed look like it was relatively close to the suggested alignment .If we then measure from the eastern pit to the centre point , we merely have to add the same distance to the line from the centre point to find the point of the western pit .When we do we find a point on the Cursus nearly 380 metres too far west from the point where the solstice sun set alignment “line “ would cross and nowhere near the point suggested on their removed plan . By applying the same logic but this time starting with the western pit we obviously the same kind of discrepancy .This of course avoids having to discuss the problems with the non falsifiable claims ,which potentially could take many dull hours .Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-50886748727530009272011-12-30T15:47:36.969+00:002011-12-30T15:47:36.969+00:00Tony , The alignment from the Heel Stone to the po...Tony , The alignment from the Heel Stone to the point on the horizon where the sun is seen to rise circa 3100 BC on the summer solstice is one of salient alignments for the Brum idea as it should cross the point of the eastern pit . That particular alignment has some relation to the periglacial stripes which are said to echo the orientation of the Avenue but I doubt the stripes maintain as accurate an orientation as the ditches of the Avenue and as such are only of interest in their general orientation which was seized upon by MPP and chums and not really germane to the Brum idea which involves one procession on the orientation of the Cursus and another ,not at right angles to that orientation but due south midway between the pits finishing up supposedly at the centre of the unsighted pre stone monument ,with no previous indication of anything follwing this route discovered by geofizz and more importantly actually ending up nearly 180 metres to the east of the monument i.e. even outside the ditch .Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-88605363245478562802011-12-30T14:23:15.044+00:002011-12-30T14:23:15.044+00:00Since this Brum Uni work depends in part for its t...Since this Brum Uni work depends in part for its theorising claims upon the so-called peri-glacial stripes - seemingly identified by Charly French, friend of the Stonehenge Riverside Project, as running away from the Heel Stone along the 'path' of the later-created(?) Avenue, I will mention that more about this Charly (or Charles) French may be found by entering the following keywords into your Search Engine:-<br /><br />CHARLY FRENCH McBURNEY LABORATORY FOR GEOARCHAEOLOGY CAMBRIDGE<br /><br />He has worked with Francis Pryor on prehistoric projects in East Anglia, for example. This McBurney Lab. appears to be part of the Dept of Archaeology at Cambridge Uni.<br /><br />Does he speak the same language as Brian and other geomorphologists?Tony Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-56680858204030626222011-12-30T11:10:52.427+00:002011-12-30T11:10:52.427+00:00Rather difficult...
Yes, falls into the too diffi...Rather difficult...<br /><br />Yes, falls into the too difficult to bother trying to work out I think.<br /><br />Thanks BrianJon Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264966739582178631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-32246033906725621092011-12-29T20:07:49.164+00:002011-12-29T20:07:49.164+00:00Yes, this is an interesting one -- I'm familia...Yes, this is an interesting one -- I'm familiar with the idea that surface gradients of piles of stuff (angular boulders, angular or round pebbles, sand, silt etc) will vary, with the general principle that the larger the fragments the steeper the angle that can be maintained. But in nature you almost always have a regolith of some sort, and even on chalk slopes you might have a steepish slope with bedrock exposures at the top of a hillside, then with a zone of broken fragments, and then gravels / sands //and finally silts and clays in the bottom of a coombe. Overall result -- a concave slope, with each segment of it responding to particle size, moisture levels and downslope mobility. Generalisations? Rather difficult...BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-60656744288263045142011-12-29T18:42:11.840+00:002011-12-29T18:42:11.840+00:00Hi Brian
It's an engineering term we use, usu...Hi Brian<br /><br />It's an engineering term we use, usually for granular materials, to show what angle any material will naturally lie at if you were to pour that material onto a spot on the ground. For granulars, the natural angle will fairly quickly be reached if some other agent causes it to have a higher angle than the natural angle.<br /><br />But if you cut into the chalk of the downs, you create an unnuatural angle: It's the rate of weathering away in the downs that's of interest. Long story: related to Stonehenge, email me if of interest.Jon Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264966739582178631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-42476714894117165062011-12-29T17:51:28.643+00:002011-12-29T17:51:28.643+00:00Not sure you can talk of a "natural angle of ...Not sure you can talk of a "natural angle of repose" for chalk or any other rock type. It all depends on the interaction between the nature of the rock and the nature of the environment. If there is downcutting going on, then you can get steep slopes, and if sedimentation is dominant, then slopes will be shallower. But landscapes are multi-faceted, with features of many different ages juxtaposed. The old WM Davis ideas of maturity and old age in landscapes are not used much these days.BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-48868390459009457002011-12-29T17:43:41.830+00:002011-12-29T17:43:41.830+00:00Brian, on another topic, do you know what the rate...Brian, on another topic, do you know what the rates of decay to a natural angle of repose of natural chalk are? Chalk in lumps is about 35-45 so I'm assuming that a 30 degree repose in 3000 BC would be more or less the same as it is today?<br /><br />Thanks <br /><br />JonJon Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264966739582178631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-24155780154017329882011-12-29T17:35:22.983+00:002011-12-29T17:35:22.983+00:00"but even better would be the release of the ..."but even better would be the release of the co-ordinates /grid refs in the datum of their choosing centred on the centre of the pits and we can then give an even more accurate refutation."<br /><br />Yes, we know that some of what has been said in the publicity releases that went out to the newspapers must be incorrect. I hadn't thought of the conspiratorial angle: The lack of release of coordinate data makes them look flaky rather than conspiratorial?Jon Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264966739582178631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-73740465757389306322011-12-29T17:21:02.443+00:002011-12-29T17:21:02.443+00:00peteglastonbury@gmail.com
Email if you still want ...peteglastonbury@gmail.com<br />Email if you still want copies of the mapsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-29482542757094464442011-12-29T17:02:11.854+00:002011-12-29T17:02:11.854+00:00Jon ,I didn't want to mention the posting then...Jon ,I didn't want to mention the posting then removal of the higher res pics as it smacked of a suggestion of "conspiracy " , I'll give them the benefit of the doubt .They were useful but even better would be the release of the co-ordinates /grid refs in the datum of their choosing centred on the centre of the pits and we can then give an even more accurate refutation.<br />Just over a year ago the Trefael cup marked rock was being described in the media by “several astronomers that the distribution of the cupmarks may represent a section of the night sky that includes the star constellations of Cassiopeia, Orion, Sirius and of course the North Star.” There was silence when I pointed out the flaws in the argument followed by personal stuff typically lacking in data , recently the interim report was published , no mention of the astronomers or the representations .Like the “ henge “ discovered in Fargo Field will this Pit “alignment “stuff go the same way ?Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-28152722770924175352011-12-29T14:58:02.057+00:002011-12-29T14:58:02.057+00:00I sent the below to Mike Pitts web site at the t...I sent the below to Mike Pitts web site at the time ,although had flagged up problems about it right at the start despite being led up the garden path by an ill informed "spot" for one of the pits from “Heritage Daily “ . I avoided most of the huge problems with the ideas of procession and stuck to what was falsifiable David's article changes nothing about the data or extreme nuttiness of the ideas even if based on accurate calculations which they are not .<br />“Thanks Mike and the Birmingham team for the data that really is helpful and clears things up. It was apparent that something was not working out from the text available on Saturday but without co-ordinates not so easy to say exactly where the mistake lay . Heritage Daily didn’t help by giving one of the pits sites as the same for last years “Henge “ .<br />Assuming the pits are contemporaneous with the cursus i.e. 3630- 3670 BC then the declination for solstice rise and set and that time was 24.05 degrees and the azimuth for sun set at the Solstice as seen from the heel Stone would be 309.5 degres . Looking at the GE image the azimuth for the Heel Stone to western pit alignment is 312.6 degrees (a convenient mark is the south western edge of the field that contains the “Cursus Barrows “ ) which is three degrees further north than the sun ever actually gets to . The alignment towards the solstice sun rise is accurate and the resulting distance between the two points is within a couple of metres of exactly 2 Km . the mid way point is thus within a metre over 1 Km ,this point when extended due south as suggested for the final leg of the procession does not lead to the centre of Stonehenge but a point 210 metres east of the centre of the monument .<br />I have stuck to falsifiable data but problems with the conjecture about alignments involving non intervisibility and painfully slow processions all based on two pits that are undated ,unexcavated and too big to have held timber posts or megaliths might take up too much room . “ If anyone wants the data required to do the calc do ask , it is limited , as the teams have not released anything at all except for some pics ,but it is good enough to show they are wrong . <br />Sorry about the length of this .Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-17141721105976570402011-12-29T14:49:49.330+00:002011-12-29T14:49:49.330+00:00It's very interesting.
But the University of ...It's very interesting.<br /><br />But the University of Birminham haven't as yet released the coordinate data showing the location of the pits. The detailed mapping information, but without coordinate information, used to be on Mike Pitt's site but was removed.<br /><br />In particular: <br /><br />"they realised that, viewed from the so-called ‘Heel Stone’ at Stonehenge, the pits were aligned with sunrise and sunset on the longest day of the year – the summer solstice (midsummer’s day). The chances of those two alignments being purely coincidental are extremely low."<br /><br />This is a problematic because summer solstice alignment to the East will be different to that of the West because of the hill ridge of Durrington and Larkhill. <br /><br />It's also problematic in that it begs the question as to why someone would build an alignment in a location that they know will not have a true horizon.Jon Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264966739582178631noreply@blogger.com