« Hurrah for a sensible headteacher and her pupils | Main | раскулачивание plans »

Stone Age Tom Toms

Blognor Regis sceptically brings us news of Stone age navigation :

1,500 sites stretching from Norfolk to north Wales. These included standing stones, hilltop forts, stone circles and hill camps. Each was built within eyeshot of the next.
Using GPS co-ordinates, he plotted a course between the monuments and noted their positions to each other.
He found that they all lie on a vast geometric grid made up of isosceles 'triangles'. Each triangle has two sides of the same length and 'point' to the next settlement.

The centre of the whole network is Silbury Hill and one of the nearest points is Rybury Camp which is south of it. You would think he must have examined it really well as his whole network depends on the first points.


The top of Silbury Hill is 187 metres; your task today is to work out how you can stand there and see the top of Rybury Camp (240 m) through the Tan Hill ridge which at its lowest is 255 m. Maybe Stone Age man had really tall periscopes as well...


Isn't that basically what Arnold Watkins wrote in The Old Straight Track in 1921?

I seems to remember reading a similar theory about ley lines. Basically some dippy-hippy academic postulated that churches were typically built on junctions of these mythical lines and proceeded to draw lines linking them and "proving" that ley lines formed a geometric pattern. The only problem was, someone else then demonstrated that given enough points one could form geometric patterns using just about any category of structure as one's node points - public toilets, power transformers, radio masts, you name it.

Basically, Britain is so densly populated and has been for so long, one can "prove" anything one wants. Especially when one conveniently ignores trivia like the lie of the land or the age differences between various things.

I do not think DD is referring to "Ley Lines", which are fully-apochryphal and a figment of Watkins's imagination.

This newer stuff of David Darbyshire's is probably nonsense as well.

However, there is much in the Gerald Hawkins/Prof Alexander Thom hypothesis that "standing stones" (used as foresights or backsights with other natural features) and indeed the full circles and ellipses of stonesa or posts, did have some calendar/astronomic function. The probability, checked with a chi-square test, of their observed solar and lunar and stellar (in some cases) alignments being accidental, is astonishingly low.

I am advised by a friend who thinks he knows quite serious maths (unlike me) that Stonehenge if complete, ought to be able to predict not only the calendar quite well, but solar and lunar eclipses, and the Taurids, Leonids and Perseids as meteor streams. This might have been important 4-6,000 years ago when these could have been rather more dangerous events for us.

This really is a load of Dingoes Kidneys! Any series of points can be connected in such a way that triangles are formed. The fact that you can get isosceles triangles is a similar phenomena but really will be found under the heading "so what?"

Pick a large number of random points in the British countryside. You can find some sort of ancient something at or near every one of them - let's face it, such things are literally everywhere, in a country that's been populated for several thousand years or even longer.

Plot them on a map.

Baddabing! You can draw straight lines through some of them.

Well colour me surprised. Clearly we are all descended from interplanetary aliens. Or something.

Post a comment