134 replies to this topic

[RobStanton]

Hi,

I know ancient lines have something of a bad press but I have tried to look at all the megalithic sites in the UK to see if lines exist. I was surprised to find that the more I looked the more I found. In fact there appear to be hardly any which are not in a line of some sort which seems to me to be more than coincidence. I have put the results on the website at http://www.oldstonelines.co.uk so that you can examine the evidence and decide for yourself.

Rob

[shiny]

Sorry Rob...............I can't get your link to work.


    

[RobStanton]

Hi,

Sorry about this but I have checked with the ISP and they say the server with my website on it is down for maintenance. It should be up again in about half an hour.

Rob

[kevin.b]

RobStanton,
                As you are up in the lofty heights of the megalithic forum, I cannot comment too much.
If you wish to consider about a reason for the alignments and what they are aligned with, then please open up a thread in the alternative forum.
kevin

[Stonetramp]

Taking a look at these diagrams, I am still at a loss to understand why anyone would think the lines you can draw to connect these sites are meaningful. If you look at a map of any country (or even a page filled with random dots) you can connect many of the towns with lines. What am I missing here? In the UK the sites are so numerous, of course there are going to be some that fall on the same line. What is the basis for giving these lines meaning?

RobStanton, on 9 May 2008, 13:54, said:

Hi,

I know ancient lines have something of a bad press but I have tried to look at all the megalithic sites in the UK to see if lines exist. I was surprised to find that the more I looked the more I found. In fact there appear to be hardly any which are not in a line of some sort which seems to me to be more than coincidence. I have put the results on the website at http://www.oldstonelines.co.uk so that you can examine the evidence and decide for yourself.

Rob

[RobStanton]

[quote name='Stonetramp' date='9 May 2008, 17:09' post='7366']
Taking a look at these diagrams, I am still at a loss to understand why anyone would think the lines you can draw to connect these sites are meaningful. If you look at a map of any country (or even a page filled with random dots) you can connect many of the towns with lines. What am I missing here? In the UK the sites are so numerous, of course there are going to be some that fall on the same line. What is the basis for giving these lines meaning?


I completely agree with you that it would be expected that *some* would would fall randomly in straight lines. I have tried to include all examples in the UK on the diagrams and it seems to be the case that nearly all of them are in lines. At a guess 96 percent. If I had found a figure ofsay 50% at an early stage I would not have been convinced but a percentage as high as that indicates an intention to create the lines by the builders despite the difficulties involved.

[Maju]

Stonetramp, on 9 May 2008, 18:09, said:

Taking a look at these diagrams, I am still at a loss to understand why anyone would think the lines you can draw to connect these sites are meaningful. If you look at a map of any country (or even a page filled with random dots) you can connect many of the towns with lines. What am I missing here? In the UK the sites are so numerous, of course there are going to be some that fall on the same line. What is the basis for giving these lines meaning?

Almost exactly my thoughts. Specially when I saw the first graph that is nothing but a mish-mash of lines:



Seeing that, I am convinced they are meaningless.

[Star]

I went to your site and clicked on the links and the lines dont make any sense. I want to 'get' what you are talking about, but your 'maps' have no ground reference.  are the dots stone circles?  the lines seem so random.  what is the area being mapped?  each one, and there are many, are just a bunch of dots and lines with no reference as to where, or what except that they are supposed to be lines of energy connecting megalithic sites.  please add more detail to convey your points!  i am fascinated by this subject, i want to learn and i cant tell what in the world you are talking about.

[RobStanton]

Star, on 11 May 2008, 19:34, said:

I went to your site and clicked on the links and the lines dont make any sense. I want to 'get' what you are talking about, but your 'maps' have no ground reference.  are the dots stone circles?  the lines seem so random.  what is the area being mapped?  each one, and there are many, are just a bunch of dots and lines with no reference as to where, or what except that they are supposed to be lines of energy connecting megalithic sites.  please add more detail to convey your points!  i am fascinated by this subject, i want to learn and i cant tell what in the world you are talking about.

Hi,
The circles and flags are either cairns, stone circles, tumuli/barrows, dolmens, or standing stones.
I have put a couple of examples on the web page to make it clearer. You can locate the area in question by going to http://www.ordnances...ebsite/getamap/    Then enter the name of the map on my page in their search box. You need to add a couple of zeros so sx3987 becomes sx390870. You can then zoom out to get an idea of context. The map reference is the top left of my map and the centre of their map so the bottom right quarter of their map is on my map. My life is quite busy at the moment so I havn't yet had the time to make all the maps more detailed. I hope this helps

[seanachai]

Rob,

Your theory implies that there had to have been a master plan, even if it was for just two or three monuments, let alone hundreds.  Not to mention their construction likely spanned decades or centuries, if not millennia, along with tens or perhaps hundreds of generations, different clans and distances. If in fact the alignment of the monuments served some sort of purpose that their construction over came those obstacles, it would mean they were of immense significance. As such, through oral tradition and eventually ancient texts, that would warrant at least some mention.  I’ve not come across anything in my reading.  If you have, then cite any authorities supporting your theory.  Beyond that, there's the issue of new monuments constantly being discovered.  Perhaps the monuments that you show being aligned, might actually be aligned with some newly unearthed monuments.

[shiny]

Rob............Your diagram reminds me of this...........



            http://www.blog.spec...ves/gem-dna.jpg

[RobStanton]

However unlikely you think it is that there was widespread organisation, co-ordination and planning for the siting of these monuments you need to weight that against the much greater unlikelyhood that such a high proportion of them could be aligned as the result of random coincidence.
As these societies did not have writing the knowledge must have been transmitted orally through the generations and may have been lost at some time due to war, famine or just a change of belief system. Stonehenge and the durrington walls are very large monuments and must have been of great significance to the people who used them but the Parker Pearson/Ramilisonina theory about what they represented is not being dismissed simply because there is no folklore to corrobate it.
There are many cases on the diagrams where one monument is included in more than one line and if new monuments were discovered which lined up with currently known examples it would just be another extension of that trend.

[kevin.b]

Robstanton,
                 If you would simply open another thread in the alternative section of this forum, I would discuss with you possible reasons for alignments, and for the movement of alignments as found in this report,
http://www.britarch....a94/feat2.shtml

To conform with this site owners request I do not comment too much up here, it only causes upset, but the alternative section is set aside for such discussion.
kevin

[Jan Stillström]

RobStanton, on 9 May 2008, 14:54, said:

Hi,

I know ancient lines have something of a bad press but I have tried to look at all the megalithic sites in the UK to see if lines exist. I was surprised to find that the more I looked the more I found. In fact there appear to be hardly any which are not in a line of some sort which seems to me to be more than coincidence. I have put the results on the website at http://www.oldstonelines.co.uk so that you can examine the evidence and decide for yourself.

Rob

Jan Stillström 2 June 2008 23:45 local time

I do not care if directed lines/alignements between magaliths have a bad reputation among those who hav´nt studied the topic.
I think your and my experience is rewarding. Using internet I have found conections between monuments at the isle of Lewis (GB). Using magnetometric scanning I have found 10 coaxial lines (every 8-10 meters) in the area of the first solar observatory found in Sweden (dec 2008), at Vitemölla, Skåne. I think they resemble prehistoric agricultural field boundaries and stone marked border lines between tribe territories.

Jan Stillström (jan,stillstrm@telia.com)

[Maju]

Personally I am very skeptic about apparently related monuments having any sort of inter-organization. I admire a lot the knowledge, ability and organization of the old ones but I have no reason to think that they were building one after the other different monuments according to any master plan (not that there are not written records, what is like asking for written records of the dinosaurs, just that I don't see it).

Nevertheless you may be interested in this site on Pyrenean cromlechs whose author argues that they were built to mirror the constellations. I don't believe it, at least not easily, but the site is at least a good mapping document of some Pyrenean stone rings.