Re: IS Thornborough Orion? | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

FourWinds Mar 10, 2004 09:25:32

Replying to BrigantesNation

Also the constellation of Orion probably wasn't recognised as a whole thing in 2500BC the Belt is very prominent and was probably the main thing noticed. The fact that other stars followed the belt around would have been seen, but may not have been important.

How big is the top henge in nigel's composite? If the stars are superimposed over the henges then this one is 10% out. That's fairly inaccurate for a people with advanced maths skills, but the maths isn't the issue.

I've been trying to think of a 'primitive' way to measure them. Can't think of one. Today I could look through a sheet of glass and mark them onto it. Enlarging this would be fairly simple, but how accurate would it be? Not too bad I imagine.

Of course, as it's symbolic it doesn't have to be highly accurate. As long as it gives the right impression that's all that matters. Or is it? Another of those things we'll never know for sure ...

I'm firmly in the 'Maybe/Probably' camp on this.

pedant's corner:
But I wish the question had been "Does Thornborough Represent The Three Stars We Today Call Orion's Belt?", because it doesn't represent Orion for one thing and I doubt that they were called that 4500 years ago and Thornborough certainly isn't three super-hot balls of gas millions of miles away so it can't BE Orion's Belt.

BrigantesNation Mar 10, 2004 09:31:23

Replying to FourWinds

I had a thought that what you could do is make a large puddle, then get someone to put in sticks for each star, guided by a viewer.

I'm with you 4W, I don't see any reason why not, and if the other alignments are correct, then it would tend to support the theory.

Of course, all this obviously points to memorys of a distant advanced civilisation that came here from Orion but were subsequently wiped out by a natural disaster ;o)

nigelswift Mar 10, 2004 10:18:29

Replying to FourWinds

FW, I humbly apologise for saying Orion and not Orions Belt.
The explanation (tho' I know you won't take this as an adequate excuse) was that I was playing with the idea of making the title catchy, Orion Ornot?
I also apologise for not making it clear there is in fact no Orion nor a Belt but merely an optical illusion and burning clouds of gas.

Actually, the belt is a fair bet to have been taken most note of, I think, rather than the larger constellation patterns. It, like the Pleiades sticks out more clearly than all other constellations, being so closely grouped. I don't "see" the plough as a whole thing quite as readily as the others jump out at me.