nigelswift wrote:
Here's a ticklish question I can't get my head round: If 3 points in a straight line are insufficient to suggest intentionality then are two such instances which share a common point any more likely to do so?
Quite . And another question: are there any other cases where one of the points is below the horizon (as here) but where intentionality is nevertheless postulated (dowsing manuals excepted).
Here is a quote from one of the team after the discovery of the previous "henge " .
Paul Garwood, prehistorian at the Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity at the University of Birmingham, said “This discovery is of great importance for our understanding of the Stonehenge landscape in the 3rd millennium BC. Its location, a short distance from Stonehenge, and the fact that the two monuments were inter-visible, raises exciting new questions about the complex sacred landscape that existed around Stonehenge when the sarsen and bluestone monument was constructed.”
Is non intervisibility the new intervisibility ?
