Re: Welsh Ramblers walks May 2014 | Forum

Maen Llia 7

Image by cerrig

Welsh Ramblers walks May 2014

thesweetcheat May 16, 2014 19:21:10

Replying to tiompan

A couple of observations:

Maybe worth mentioning that many monuments that are "clearly" related (at least in terms of date/type/proximity) aren't necessarily all visible from each other, though some might be visible from some of the others. Some of the South Wales monuments may be not visible from each other due to a rise in the intervening ground. Postie and I saw good examples of this at Y Pigwyn, a few miles NW of the Maen Llia monuments.

Conversely those same monuments might all be visible from a different (often higher) vantage point. The summit ridge or western slopes of Fan Llia may be the "best" place to see the Maen Llia monuments from collectively, for example.

I would also chuck in that contemporaneity isn't always essential for monuments to be "related" either. Plenty of long barrows have round barrows built close by that evidently have a relationship with the much earlier monument (even if we don't know what that relationship is, exactly).

Even with good 5m contours, a 1/25000 map doesn't show you the folds in the land all that accurately. Here's a site that looks straight from above/on the map, but appears to curve on site:
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/89397/down_tor.html

In any case, a surveyor won't lay a tape between two points on a slope and then use that measurement alone as the basis of the length of line he draws on his 2D map. A line measured from his 2D map will be shorter than the length measured on the ground, as he would need to correct for the slope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tape_correction_(surveying)#Correction_due_to_slope

Can't say I've considered equidistance at sites before, personally. Something new to think about!

I would tend to agree (based on nothing more scientific than visiting sites without measuring anything at all) that topography plays a bigger part than equidistance in placement of monuments in proximity.

tiompan May 16, 2014 19:57:28

Replying to thesweetcheat

[quote="thesweetcheat"]
"I would also chuck in that contemporaneity isn't always essential for monuments to be "related" either. "

I agree but at Maen Llia the argument was that the possible equidistance suggested contemporaneity ,i.e. " “its geometric relationship with nearby Bronze Age monuments points to its prehistoric origins .” it may well be prehistoric and associated but you don't date mouments from their distance to another monument , which is as bad as dating a monument from a possible astro event .

"In any case, a surveyor won't lay a tape between two points on a slope and then use that measurement alone as the basis of the length of line he draws on his 2D map. A line measured from his 2D map will be shorter than the length measured on the ground, as he would need to correct for the slope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tape_correction_(surveying)#Correction_due_to_slope "

At ML it's over 300 m ,you can bet the bloke who first recognised the distances never traipsed a tape over the 300+m . The equidiatance was recognised on a map .

"I would tend to agree (based on nothing more scientific than visiting sites without measuring anything at all) that topography plays a bigger part than equidistance in placement of monuments in proximity."

People who are interested in monuments often notice similar features about the siting of moorland/upland monuments , not in the obvious spot but at a point where it might be visible from certain points lower down , relationships to water , direction of valleys etc , they crop up time and again and appear intentional as opposed to the pot luck of a siting imposed on it by the fiat of equidistance .