Moderators: Minimalist, MichelleH
E.P. Grondine wrote:spice, tiompan -
Let me explain to you why your definition does not work.
Here in Ohio, there are the many ruins of circular earthen structures which fit your definition of henge.
If you were to label them as "henges" that would obscure their true function,
which was ceremonial centers to teach the night sky.
It would also lead to multiple attempts to construct
entirely imaginary Celtic empires in North America.
Finally, it would leave those who have remains with
either wood or stones placed in circular and celestial alignment
without an easy way of describing what they have found.
This originally started with a discussion of whether
the remains at Gobleki Tepe had any astronomical alignment.
IN my opinoin, trying to avoid that issues
by raising fine points of language
will not work.
E.P. Grondine wrote:
What is obvious o me is that the archaeo-astronomers would have
an easier time of it if they had an easy to use and widely understood
word for a wooden post or stone placed in a circular astronomical alignment.
E.P. Grondine wrote:"Henge" presents itself a a good candidate.
[/quote ]
No it doesn't , this is obvious to anyone who understands simple english and can read the various links pointing your error .
We have the the terminology and henge has nothing at all to do with astronomy and is confined the morphology of the monument .
Any putative or even actual astronomcal function that might be associated with the monument also has it's terminology .E.P. Grondine wrote:I'll try to retrieve the colonial account of that Yuchi henge site when time permits .
[/quote ]
If it was a colonial account they wouldn't have used the term henge . Why not provide a modern archaeological reference ?E.P. Grondine wrote:To bring this back to topic, if Fletcher and I find an Adena monolith in astronomical alignment,
we'll call it a "henge", as it would be nice if people understood us
.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests