reconstruction based partly on laser point cloud data © A.E. Johnson 2008
[…] them out there, and at first we were inclined to post them all as one. But there is enough on the site posted by reader sarsen56 for us to make a whole post just from […]
Virtual Henges, Part One « Clone Henge said this on November 30, 2008 at 11:34 pm
I’m trying to draw a link between sumerian technology and stone henge, not saying it was built by them, but the outer sarsens; 30 uprights, that makes 60 degrees of sarsen and space. Do you know if there are 24 or a similarly based number of inner smaller stone before the larger monoliths? You see Sumer had a base 60, 12 and 360 system this could relate to the construction of stone henge as it existed around the same time.
tom owens said this on January 16, 2011 at 11:22 pm
In respect of the numbers of the earlier smaller inner stones (which are usually thought to be exclusively bluestones, but not certainly so) you need to consider the excavation records. The remains if the early stone sockets were badly disturbed by later construction, these setting are known as the ‘Q & R Holes’, you can see the plan and description either in my book or on the Wiki page where it is reproduced. In my computer analysis I estimated there was room for a double concentric array of 40. There is no evidence for the use of the number 24 at Stonehenge.
I am aware of the Sumerian base 60 system, and the fact that that the culture was thriving at the time of the construction of the major sarsen phase at Stonehenge. I have argued that it is nigh impossible that Britain could have been totally isolated from developments in the near east for over 1000 years while Stonehenge was being conceived and not infrequently restructured. To this end I would go so far as to suggest the Geoffrey of Monmouth’s statement that Stonehenge originally came from Africa should be taken not literally but conceptually. This theme was later picked up by the 17th century antiquarian Aylett Sammes who made similar connections based n Geoffrey’s statement. I think it’s safe to suggest that for the term ‘Africa’ we may loosely embrace virtually the whole of the southern and south eastern Mediterranean fringes with which the Sumerians no doubt had contact.
Personally I have no doubt that Stonehenge is a geometrically and mathematically inspired construction. All the archaeological evidence conspires to show that the architects of the monument wished to create a perfectly symmetrical work of mirrored symmetry. The use of geometric solutions to achieve this is obvious but has been obscured and confused by modern preoccupations with external ‘alignments’, most, if not all of which are at the very least fanciful or complete nonsense. The architects, having arrived at their design then simply set it out on the important ‘solar axis’ (the midwinter sunset- midsummer sunrise).
Hence in creating the stone arrays they first needed a plan, just as with any major construction (this is where your question is important) and moreover the architects plan would have had to have been transferred onto the ground using practical methods. This practical solution was undoubtedly based on scribed circles and the radii of circles (where pegs and ropes are the surveyor’s extension of the architect’s ruler and compass). Hence 6 (the hexagon, easy to construct) and multiples of 6 become significant, so we have 30 sarsens in the outer ring, fixing the first 6 stones of the circle was simple and highly accurate. It’s also clear from the fact that the centre inner (flatter) faces of the sarsen ring form a near perfect triacontagon (a regular 30 sided polygon) that they also could construct a pentagon. To see how this is important and was probably achieved see p.204 of ‘Solving Stonehenge’. Finally, and importantly, by using geometric methods and relations there was no need to make measurements, for geometric constructions are self scaling from concept to construction.
How far we can go in connecting the geometry and mathematics of contemporary 3rd millennium BC cultures remains speculative (as of course does Geoffrey of Monmouth’s explanation above) but it is well worth exploring. I hope these points are useful to you, and good luck with your research.
sarsen56 said this on January 17, 2011 at 12:22 pm
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Blog at WordPress.com.