Live data from Hacker News

1960s theory that Stonehenge was a prehistoric computer

bbc.com

31–40 of 73 posts

Re: 1960s theory that Stonehenge was a prehistoric computer

#33
IIRC (read the book ages ago when much younger) , the theory was that by using the 56 Aubrey holes to count, say, by moving a pole from one hole to another once a year, an eclipse could be predicted to occur every 18th or 19th year. I always wondered why this was never simulated, and I guess the answer is that it would not work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_holes#Archaeoastronomy_...

Re: 1960s theory that Stonehenge was a prehistoric computer

#35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would be pretty stupid to spend all this energy erecting stones just for the view of it I think the same way looking at medieval cathedrals or Roman and Greek era theatres, collesiums, and agoras... At least the Ottomans used the Parthenon as an arms depot, giving those stones some meaning. (This is sarcasm)

The cathedral movement started in 1006 with a quiet goal to redirect resources away from the crusades. It was also from a sort of cultural vacuum after the world didn't end at the turn of the millennium.

1006 is 90 years before the First Crusade...

Re: 1960s theory that Stonehenge was a prehistoric computer

#36
post #10

Would be pretty stupid to spend all this energy erecting stones just for the view of it. Like, it obviously had SOME purpose.

Yeah, why did they go through all that effort to build the Eiffel tower?

I realize that was tongue in cheek, but what I found more interesting is that is was only to stand for 20 years and was initially set to be demolished in 1909. So your question is even more amusing as the thing was only supposed to be temporary.

Re: 1960s theory that Stonehenge was a prehistoric computer

#37

At this rate, I would find it startling if ancient stonework didn't have something to do with the sun, moon, and stars. Everywhere you look some ancient society was predicting these things by tracking them.

I don’t think the italics help at all.

Re: 1960s theory that Stonehenge was a prehistoric computer

#38
OA makes no mention of Fred Hoyle's 'three hours with a calculator' to check Hawkins figures (and being generally unimpressed). Also nothing about the Thoms (Alexander and Archie) who surveyed many other stone circles, or perhaps a passing reference to John North's chunky book on Stonehenge itself. Latterly Euan MacKie was working out how exactly you could test an hypothesis about ancient observers marking a celestial alignment of some type anywhere in the latitudes of Britain. A multi-route rabbit hole if you are in need of diversion.

Re: 1960s theory that Stonehenge was a prehistoric computer

#40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't "for the view," it was, in no particular order, and non-exhaustively: * To provide work * To serve as a reminder of the power and authority of the church * To glorify God * To make sure all the other nearby kingdoms were aware of how much cooler you are than them

> * To provide work Cite required. Work in a pre-industrial agrarian society is ever-present, unless there's a drought. (Although in that case the coffin builders may need extra hands.)

That's a simplistic, reductive, and uninformed expression of history which completely disregards the roles of the artisan, merchant, innkeeper, or any of the numerous other trades which kept early economies moving. Not everyone was a hand-to-mouth peasant farmer, either in medieval Europe, or in earlier points in history.

The building of a cathedral provided generations of employment for stonemasons, men involved in felling and shipping timber, men involved in cutting and shipping stone, as well as people responsible for feeding the workers, making and repairing their tools, etc.; and once built, the cathedral would be a draw for pilgrims, who would need places to stay, food to eat, and so on.

A cathedral provides work.

Post reply on HN