скачать книгу бесплатно
Fig. 104 Marks shown up in a resistivity survey in Longstones field, and possibly relating to the Beckhampton Avenue (based on recordings published by P. J. Ucko and others).
Fig. 105 The Drizzlecombe stone rows, after a plan by R. H. Worth.
Fig. 106 The Callanish rows, after plans by D. A. Tait (rows) and R. Curtis (centre).
Fig. 107 The central region of the circle and rows at Callanish.
Fig. 108 Approximate lines of sight at Callanish for the first or last glint of the Sun at its midwinter extreme.
Fig. 109 Relations between the north of the Kennet Avenue and the north and south circles at Avebury.
Fig. 110 The main rings of large stones at Avebury, with some potential construction arcs.
Fig. 111 The estimated positions of whatever was responsible for the marks on the Avebury resistivity survey—presumably post holes or stone holes.
Fig. 112 The chief internal astronomical alignments set by the components of the Avebury circles.
Fig. 113 W. Glasbergen’s types of post rings, as found surrounding barrows.
Fig. 114 The Harenermolen barrow, drawn from the excavation records of A. E. van Giffen.
Fig. 115 Different ways of using two upright posts to align on a part of the disk of the Sun or Moon.
Fig. 116 A schematic view of the Harenermolen barrow in its later phase.
Fig. 117 The eleven posts of the later ring at Harenermolen, showing the poor approximation to a circle but the rather good radial alignments.
Fig. 118 Eight potential alignments for the outer ring of posts at Harenermolen, with three somewhat less plausible ones.
Fig. 119 Some of the numerous potential alignments for the earlier ring of posts at Harenermolen.
Fig. 120 Numbers of posts in a sample of 73 timber circles of Glasbergen’s type 3 excavated in the Drenthe area of the northern Netherlands.
Fig. 121 Directions set by rings of eleven and seventeen posts.
Fig. 122 The causeway post holes at Stonehenge with our nominal grid of two sets of mostly parallel lines superimposed.
Fig. 123 The Aubrey circle at Stonehenge, surrounding the numerous post holes that must have formed one, and possibly several, timber circles.
Fig. 124 Some of the very many speculative construction lines that it is possible to superimpose on the Stonehenge post holes.
Fig. 125 Conjectured values of the altitudes set by the original bank at Stonehenge, looking towards the midwinter or midsummer setting Sun.
Fig. 126 Selected lines of sight across an idealized post circle of the sort assumed to have stood in the Aubrey holes.
Fig. 127 An idealized Aubrey circle of 56 posts.
Fig. 128 Plan of the positions of the actual Aubrey holes, on which most of the sight-lines shown on the idealized figure ( Fig. 127 ) fit almost perfectly.
Fig. 129 An idealized view of the ring of posts in the Aubrey holes, with one of the timber rings and the southern corridor.
Fig. 130 Tracks across Normanton Down.
Fig. 131 Posts for solar and lunar observation across the centre of a post circle.
Fig. 132 The ditches and six nested oval post circles at Woodhenge.
Fig. 133 A vertical section through the northwest to southeast axis at Woodhenge, with posts and lintels of sizes required to produce usable lines of sight.
Fig. 134 A general view of Woodhenge in its original state.
Fig. 135 The conjectural rule governing the proportions of an ideal post. The units are arbitrary.
Fig. 136 The orientation of ditch, bank and river in relation to the timber rings at Durrington Walls and Woodhenge.
Fig. 137 One of the long measures that might have been in round numbers of MY at Durrington Walls.
Fig. 138 Durrington Walls, Phase 2 of the southern circle, showing the southeast façade, with ‘bar’.
Fig. 139 A detail of the preceding figure, with some construction lines added.
Fig. 140 Durrington Walls. Post holes at the northern circle and the approaching corridor.
Fig. 141 Potential sight lines at Durrington Walls (southern circles).
Fig. 142 All potential sight lines from the same position as in the previous figure, whether or not they are capable of avoiding the uprights.
Fig. 143 The view through the southern Durrington Walls monument to a person approaching the left post of the southern entrance.
Fig. 144 A reconstruction of the southern Durrington Walls monument on the basis of post heights derived earlier.
Fig. 145 A general plan of the Mount Pleasant enclosure, with henge monument, palisade, ditch and bank.
Fig. 146 The ditches and post holes at the Mount Pleasant timber henge.
Fig. 147 The profile of the northwest to southeast section at the Mount Pleasant timber henge.
Fig. 148 A general view of the main timber post circles at Mount Pleasant.
Fig. 149 Mount Pleasant. The blocking effect of the posts and lintels as presented to an observer in the northeast ditch looking in the general direction of midwinter sunset.
Fig. 150 Potential sight lines at the Mount Pleasant henge.
Fig. 151 The Arminghall henge and its immediate neighbourhood.
Fig. 152 The Arminghall henge.
Fig. 153 The highly regular arrangement of the posts at Arminghall judged by lines tangential to the posts and lines through their centres.
Fig. 154 The most probable arrangement of posts and lintels at the Arminghall henge, in relation to the ditches.
Fig. 155 The different characters of the views from the two ditches, looking over the bank at Arminghall.
Fig. 156 The station stones and the Heel Stone at Stonehenge.
Fig. 157 Some of the main elements in successive phases of Stonehenge’s history.
Fig. 158 Some of the excavated dumbbell shaped cavities with the Q- and R-holes that originally held bluestones.
Fig. 159 The Heel Stone, near the present road.
Fig. 160 A typical section of the Stonehenge Avenue in its present condition.
Fig. 161 The central Stonehenge area, showing the stones in their present state.
Fig. 162 Two alternative positions for the Altar Stone.
Fig. 163 The shape of the Slaughter Stone.
Fig. 164 A stylized view of one possible arrangement of stones (and lintels at the entrance) in the Q- and R-rings.
Fig. 165 The view through the entrance to the Q-R rings as drawn in the previous figure, from approximately the distance of the Aubrey circle.
Fig. 166 One possible arrangement of the Q-R lintels over the corridor at the northeast side of the incomplete double ring, together with the first position of the Altar Stone.
Fig. 167 Various stones excavated by William Hawley, modified and assembled from his drawings.
Fig. 168 Some of the limiting lines of sight under discussion, with stones shown in elevation that are not aligned in plan.
Fig. 169 Additional detail for the last figure.
Fig. 170 The central stones as seen today from the left and right sides of the Heel Stone.
Fig. 171 A skeletal view of the idealized dish-shaped figure created by the trilithon lintels over the drum of sarsens, as seen from the Heel Stone.
Fig. 172 A schematized view of some of the potential blocking stones between the sarsens at Stonehenge and the observer at the right side of the Heel Stone.
Fig. 173 The blocking of lines of sight by the ring of thirty sarsen uprights, for various critical positions of the observer.
Fig. 174 The relatively ineffectual blocking of sight lines by a ring of thinner stones.
Fig. 175 An approximate solution to the problem of placing the observer so as to guarantee the blocking of unwanted sight lines.
Fig. 176 Lines of sight through the monument looking northeast.
Fig. 177 A typical pattern of gaps open to view through the Q-R system, here as seen by a person at the Aubrey ring.
Fig. 178 The line of sight of an observer by stone E (which probably held the Slaughter Stone) to midwinter sunset.
Fig. 179 A detail of the previous figure.
Fig. 180 A line of sight to midwinter sunrise, limited by the trilithons 58-57 and 54-53.
Fig. 181 The lines of sight of Fig. 180 in a perspective view, showing the need to find two astronomically acceptable arrangements simultaneously, for a single Altar Stone.
Fig. 182 The transverse line of sight, for midwinter sunrise, in relation to the stones nearest the (hidden) observer.
Fig. 183 The approximate path of the rising midsummer Sun in relation to the Heel Stone (hidden), the Slaughter Stone, and stone C, assuming an imaginary viewpoint at the southeast edge of stone 16.
Fig. 184 The station stones rectangle.
Fig. 185 The repeating unit of 10 MY in the squares that appear to frame the sarsen ring and trilithons, and that yet seem to relate more strongly to the Aubrey circle and station stones.
Fig. 186 Central diagonals, one and possibly both of which seem to have passed precisely through the Aubrey centre.
Fig. 187 Sight lines that double for northern minimum lunar standstill (setting Moon) and the setting midsummer Sun, although at different altitudes.
Fig. 188 The relation between sight lines grazing the lintels on the trilithons, for an observer at the distance of the Aubrey circle.
Fig. 189 Various potential sight lines for observers standing at various places on the Aubrey circle.
Fig. 190 A stylized view from Aubrey hole 12 showing the creation of windows and the blocking effect of the various central stones.
Fig. 191 The dimensions of conjectured circles of timber posts indicating a connection with the Aubrey ring, through a series of potential lines of sight.
Fig. 192 A construction explained in the text exactly applied to a circle of radius 52 MY and then superimposed as closely as possible on the Stonehenge situation.
Fig. 193 The stations rectangle construction of the previous figure.
Fig. 194 Clay plaque with characteristic spirals and lozenges, from an early fifth-millennium Serbian settlement.
Fig. 195 Spiral and lozenge ornament on one of the Newgrange kerbstones.
Fig. 196 Geometrically constructible lines on the Bush Barrow lozenge.
Fig. 197 The Bush Barrow lozenge superimposed in one of numerous possible ways on a plan of the Stonehenge monument.
Fig. 198 The line of sight to the northern extreme of the rising Moon, as seen from Bush Barrow, exactly as it would have been set by the angle of the Bush Barrow lozenge.
Fig. 199 The domed top of the largest of the Folkton drums.
Fig. 200 A correlation of radiocarbon and calendar dates for four millennia before 1000 BC.
Fig. 201 The geocentric parallax of the Moon.
Fig. 202 Celestial coordinate systems.
Fig. 203 The relationship between azimuth and declination for a star at altitude 2.0° (the approximate extinction angle of Aldebaran, for example) at the latitude of Stonehenge.
