The Modern Antiquarian. Stone Circles, Ancient Sites, Neolithic Monuments, Ancient Monuments, Prehistoric Sites, Megalithic MysteriesThe Modern Antiquarian

Head To Head   The Modern Antiquarian   Aberdeenshire Forum Start a topic | Search
Aberdeenshire
Re: Neg Dec of Recumbent. .
44 messages
Select a forum:
There is a problem with the work of Ruggles etc. It starts by taking all possible examples of a type of site (RSCs, Irish ASCs, etc) and supposes that, if an astronomical alignment exists, it will do so consistently on all sites. Measurements are taken and the results analysed statistically.

So, if you have 60 sites and 5 show accurate alignments with 55 showing only general alignments, the conclusion will tend to be that the monuments were built with only general alignment intentions. The 5 more accurate readings simply occur by chance.

There is another explanation. The 5 may be the survivors of a group which were built with accuracy and the 55 represent the survivors of others which, for whatever reason, were simply following the general principles of the accurate sites but not the inbuilt accuracy. Tribute sites if you like. This explanation is more difficult (perhaps impossible) to test.

But Ruggles has to include all sites of a particular type. Not to do so would leave him open to the criticisms sometimes levelled at Thom - selection and bias.

Leaving statistics out of it, working with the more famous individual monuments also has problems for those who claim alignments are accurate.

At Newgrange, the solsticial alignment is based on the point at which the sun appears above the horizon. At Stonehenge, it is not horizon-based but later when the sun appears over the Heel Stone. At Maes Howe, the central passage line points not to where the sun would have set on the solstice but to a point about a fortnight before and after.

There is a lack of consistency in the alignment claims which could be put down to the differing requirements of builders separated by space and time. But cynics will argue that individual monuments with different claims to accuracy is the same as saying the alignments are general but can be presented as accurate if you're allowed to vary the definition of accuracy.

Back at RSCs, there are some monuments where the moon, at the time of the major southern moonset, would have set pretty much along the line of the recumbent. Good examples are the two Esslies and Raes of Clune - interestingly, all Kincardineshire sites which are usually presented as later and aberrant examples of RSCs.

Others come close. At several the moon at this time would be a good bit above the recumbent and at others it would not be visible. In the latter group, the declinations are no more than 4 degrees away from the 30 degrees which would give the Kincardineshire results mentioned above.

So do we have general lunar alignments with some chance accurate readings? Or were the accurate sites the models for a tradition of building monuments where, subsequently, design and intention rather than accuracy became important?

My impression is that the current received view on RSCs is to say that they had a <b>very</b> general alignment on the moon. The recumbent, flankers and distant hills framed a window through which the moon shone into the circle. It may have been specifically connected with the harvest moon.

This explanation seems to me to represent a "best fit" with the statistics. The more general you make the explanation, the fewer the exceptions to it can be. Personally, I think it has gone too far in that direction.

If you look at the results of Ruggles' work and ask the question "How many sites are accurate (on the minus 30 degrees declination test) to within 4 or 5 degrees of declination", the answer is quite a lot. Of the 59 sites on my list, 46 can have the declinations measured and 31 (two-thirds) would pass this test. … and 12 (about one quarter) are accurate to within 2 degrees.

So my (current) thinking is that there is still a case for saying that there is a connection between the recumbent and the major southern moonset if you are prepared to allow for a few being accurate, many being close approximations and some being rather more off the mark.

(Apologies for the length!)


Reply | with quote
greywether
Posted by greywether
18th June 2005ce
18:41

In reply to:

Neg Dec of Recumbent. . (suave harv)

Messages in this topic: