GLADMAN wrote:
nigelswift wrote:
I know what you mean. You'd think a formula for figuring intentionality versus randomness would have been worked out by now but no. Thornborough and Giza are pretty close to Orion, but so what? Chance or not? Or are they both intentional and Orion is chance? ;>O
So if there is no agreed algorithm for determining such odds is this not simply a matter of subjective armchair conjecture versus the concrete fieldwork of archaeologists actually surveying on site? Surely there is no substitute for the latter?
There probably is a simple calculation for the probability . I have shown two examples of exactly the same thing ,one statistically fancier i.e. more Vees and less monuments , to show how easy it is to come across the same sort of thing .
The "concrete fieldwork" of the archaeologists dated monuments because they were equidistant , that is not fieldwork . They include a "platform " in that thinking , fieldwork would suggest that platforms can be of date you don't assume that is of a similar date to a monument in the area .
The suggestion of equidistance is not based on fieldwork , quite the opposite , it was from measuring the sites on map .
