| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
It is not in the book but the situation you describe is the origin of the (otherwise hard to explain because it's so weird) religious practice of sacrificing animals on altars. You will find that most aspects of organised religion are later applications of some Megalithic aspect or other.
But to answer your general point, 'hillforts' were not only not forts originally, they weren't even hills!
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you should provide a small explanation of this in the book, and of the potlatch system. I think readers can tolerate the odd oblique reference and a bit of mystery, but you don't want to make them feel dense or frustrated.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When do you think Britain got domesticated cows? It says on wiki that:
| The aurochs was far larger than most modern domestic cattle with a shoulder height of 2 metres (6.6 ft) and weighing 1,000 kilograms (2,200 lb). Domestication of bovines occurred in several parts of the world at roughly the same time, about 8,000 years ago. It was regarded as a challenging quarry animal, contributing to its extinction. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs
Do you think the British domesticated their own cows or they got domesticated ones from Europe?
It says on National Geographic that they haven't found calf bones at Stonehenge:
| Furthermore, cattle bones excavated at the ancient settlement revealed no evidence of newborn calves. "If you have a site where animals were actually reared, you will almost certainly find a number of newborn casualties, but we are not finding that at all," Albarella said. |
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/09/080912-stonehenge_2.html
I wonder if they had a breeding program there. You could bring your best cows so they could get together with a prize bull.
Why else would you come all the way from Wales with your cows? They could have killed some of them to eat but took the pregnant ones back home:
| Cattle slaughtered during ritual festivities at the site may have come from as far away as Wales, Jane Evans of the United Kingdom's Natural Environment Research Council announced this week at the British Association Festival of Science in Liverpool. |
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/09/080912-stonehenge.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
There is a discussion of hillforts, and what they really are, later in the book. Regulars of this site know all about it since I posted the idea about twenty minutes after having it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Keimpe
In: Leeuwarden, Frisia
|
|
|
|
I have finished chapter two on the Michael Line.
Regular readers of this site know all about this line already, so nothing new in this section (even though again it's very well-written!), BUT, I would like to stress that you should give more attention to the fact that the St. Michael Line is the longest LAND line across Britain and that YOU were the one that noticed it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Keimpe wrote: | | Regular readers of this site know all about this line already, so nothing new in this section (even though again it's very well-written!), BUT, I would like to stress that you should give more attention to the fact that the St. Michael Line is the longest LAND line across Britain and that YOU were the one that noticed it. |
But why would this be important?
I think it is an artifact of what was truly important -- especially to sailors: Marking the farthest points east and west. The Michael line was not intended to mark the longest land route. It marked the longest land route as a consequence of marking the longitudinal farthest points east and west.
The explanation provided in the book for why the longest land line would be important to mark -- such as any explanation exists -- is unconvincing.
p.s. How many degrees apart are these points?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| the St. Michael Line is the longest LAND line across Britain |
| It marked the longest land route as a consequence of marking the longitudinal farthest points east and west. |
Given a landmass with such an irregular shaped coastline, as England and Wales.... is it not a rather strange coincidence that a line drawn from the most westerly to the most easterly point, should be over LAND (and only land) along its entire length?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | Given a landmass with such an irregular shaped coastline, as England and Wales.... is it not a rather strange coincidence that a line drawn from the most westerly to the most easterly point, should be over LAND (and only land) along its entire length? |
Don'know.
Pick some random land masses and try it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| YOU were the one that noticed it. |
This is one of the few (theory) things in the book that I cannot claim to be mine. I have no idea who first noticed it.... anyone know?
If you are correct, Ishmael, why are there so many Michael, George and significant landforms on the line? I agree there is no particular reason why they would select the longest line, except that it would marginally be the best, but there is another reason why the Michael Line became the longest line, as opposed to being selected for that purpose. As I point out with the Norfolk Broads argument, the Michael Line was left as the longest after all other possible lines had been eroded (by up to fifty miles). And, Ishmael, you have not bothered to tell us why knowing the longitudinal points of Britain is so important.
However, something that does support the notion that the Michael Line was not originally the longest is that it passes very close to Grimes Graves flint mines, the earliest source of Britain-wide exports.
| is it not a rather strange coincidence that a line drawn from the most westerly to the most easterly point, should be over LAND (and only land) along its entire length? |
Of course, and we don't permit coincidence. The Somerset Levels was originally an arm of the sea so that (pace Ishmael) the widest longitudinal points of Britain could not naturally be joined by a landline. So they drained the Somerset Levels.
By the way, the Michael Line is technically not actually the longest if it is held to start at St Michael's Mount. Hatty has a map of West Cornwall somewhere.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Pick some random land masses and try it. |
Of course if you pick all the landmasses, longitude and latitude, maximising land coverage, you arrive at the Great Pyramid of Giza.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | Don'know.
Pick some random land masses and try it. |
I have.
And while it's not a unique feature, it's uncommon enough to say one is not simply a consequence of the other.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
There's a danger of reading too much into a name but even so it's fair to say the Michael Line is an intellectual concept, at heart a Hermetic line. There's even a St Erme on it (the only place in England with a church dedicated to 'St Hermes' I think), the only other St Erme is a village in Picardy.
The concordance of the May sunrise with the Michael Line is obviously hugely significant. Maia is also the name of Hermes' mother.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I finished reading the second half of the first chapter. I think it's good. But from page 33 to 38, there is too much dense text. I think you might lose people, and their eyes might start to glaze over a bit.
The great thing about the internet is that it provides access to information in ways that weren't possible in 1994. The bad thing is that it has negatively affected people's ability to read large chunks of non-fictional prose all at once. People can't read the way they did in 1994 anymore.
The part about the swans on 33- 35 is good. But after that I got a bit lost. I didn't know what I was supposed to be reading about. I think rather than the "***" you should have some section headings. Maybe something like this.
The internet provides you with a tool of colossal power unrivalled thus far in the Halls of Academe. As soon as you Google somewhere or something encountered on your walk, a unique set of pathways will open up before you. Just dive in. Here are some examples to get you started.
1. What's peculiar about the 'Abbotsbury swannery'?
If you look up 'Abbotsbury swannery', you are told that...
[Rest of text about above]
2. Mayday and some pennies for the dead
[Text about above.]
3. Was St.Catherine Greek?
[Text about above.]
4. Did the Romans found Lugdunum?
- This heading would go at the top of page 37.
[Text about London]
5. Did the war on drugs begin in Megalithic times?
[Text on hemp]
6. The spire marks the spot
[Text on spires]
|
Of course, those are just suggestions for section headings. I'm sure you could come up with better ones but I think you should have something like that because people can't read anymore and I am assuming you want lots of people to read the book.
One other suggestion may be to have an introductory sentence after each section heading suggesting how the section topic relates to Megalithia (and of course the sentence summing up the relation to Megalithia at the end). Does anyone here think an introductory sentence at the beginning of each section is too much spoonfeeding?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
We are adopting both these suggestions, Rocky.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | And while it's not a unique feature, it's uncommon enough to say one is not simply a consequence of the other. |
No. But the longest line over land could have resulted simply as a consequence of selecting the points furthest east and west, and there is a more apparent reason for identifying and marking the latter.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
