Rhiannon wrote:
Pete - Your animation is a beautiful thing (I like the sheep too). But do you think this would ahve been a major thing to the builders of Stonehenge, if the period was 47 years, as i think you suggest? I had a discussion this evening about prehistoric lifetimes and was personally arguing for a decent lifespan (sparing unpleasant diseases etc) but would such a rarely -repeated spectacle attract so much attentionj so as to be noticeable and recognised as periodidcally astounding and worth looking out for next time? Yes I have been down the pub. Perhaps you're not saying it's a neolithic spectacle anyway, in which case I Take It All Back, and anyway I do not intend to be a stirrer.
Rhiannon
Hi RhiannonRhiannon
This was one of the questions I raised when we were at Callanish, with the 18.5 year moon cycle. If life expectancy was so low then there would've had to have been some who survived into their 50s at least for this to be of significance, wouldn't there? An individual would surely need to witness it at least 3 times, to see a pattern? Then factor in how long it must have taken to build these monuments.....we can only assume that the architects of some of these places didn't live to see their completion. Makes my head hurt just thinking about it (and I haven't even been down the pub!!)