:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
Hmm. You can pick any old three points at random and draw a triangle. But to get an equilateral triangle takes some figurin’.
It’s actually very simple to lay out an equilateral triangle.
All you need are two pieces of rope the same length. Stretch one rope along the ground and mark the two ends. Fix one end of each of the two equal lengths of rope at each point you’ve marked, and find the third point where you can stretch both ropes tight and have the ends meet together.
I worry that starting such a thread might be considered advertising because I write books on the topic as well as being an academic studying it. I am obsessed by it, spending hours every day on my 40 different experiments. It is bliss finally being able to learn foreign languages and remember history, when those things have evaded me for most of my life.
Or use one rope, with a stick at the end of it, to make circular scratches in the dirt, and see where the scratches cross each other.
When you find equilateral triangles in an archeological site, the interesting point isn’t that they were able to make them. The interesting point is that they wanted to make them. Why did they do it that way? Was it because they believed that geometry represented some abstract ideal of perfection? Was it because there was some functional reason that that shape provided some non-abstract benefit? Was it just because they thought that it was pretty that way?
See Lynne’s book, Memory Craft, or just search for ‘Lynne Kelly’ to find a number of videos, articles, etc.
Obviously we will never know, but my guess would be that they were emphasizing the equality of the three enclosures. Perhaps three tribal groups came together to build them, or they represent three equal deities, or three initiation rites, etc.
If you want to do so, you could ask the mods about it, and see whether you get permission. I’d be interested in reading it, if you did.
I doubt it would be advertising and as thorny locust says, you can ask mods. If it ends up being good advertising for your books, well, there’s no harm unless you’re hawking them.
Who else wants a memory aids thread? Raise your hands!
Exactly. That gives a result that you won’t arrive at with three random points.
It demonstrates conscious design and rudimentary grasp of geometry.
Related to this discussion:
A site in Western Australia that was continuously occupied for for 46,000 years, was rich in artifacts, and had not been properly investigated by archaeologists, has been destroyed by mining company Rio Tinto.
This is a tragedy for science and for the whole human race. It’s even worse than the Taliban blowing up historic sites, because we don’t know what might have been discovered there.
Blast destroys one of country’s oldest known Aboriginal heritage sites
Rio Tinto blasts 46,000-year-old Aboriginal site to expand iron ore mine
And a cartoon from First Dog on the Moon.
Missed edit window.
From the Guardian article:
I don’t understand why, if this was such an important “once in a life time discovery” , was there only one test pit dug in the past 12 years since 2008?
Were there access issues, resource issues with the archeologists or a lack of agreement that this was so important?
It sounds like there is more to the story.
In short, approval was given a significant time ago under Western Australian heritage legislation for the impact on the area. The archaeological investigation that made the significant finds took place some time afterwards. There is no mechanism within the legislation requiring a review or appeal against a legal approval. Its still unclear whether the archaeological investigation’s findings were properly communicated back to Rio Tinto so that they were aware beforehand what a significant site it was.
The legislation is definitely out of date and inadequate, and does not meet what we would consider appropriate levels of involvement by traditional owners. There may be other procedural cock-ups that also contributed to this faisco as well.
The Australian Archaeological Association issued a statement. Reading between the lines they are as frustrated by the the fact it was entirely legal, and at the same time totally disappointing.
This is one of my favorite topics. Though I know people hate when I link to videos, I’m going to link to this one from one of my favorite archaeological channels. It’s only a 16 minute video, and is mainly focused on new findings. There is another video on the channel that goes into detail (it’s really, REALLY long though…over an hour), but this one just has things discovered recently with a bit of backstory on it’s initial discovery.
I managed to watch about 5 min of that video before I couldn’t stomach any more. Do you have a video that isn’t dumbed down or aimed at 10 year olds?
I don’t link to those, as people tend to rail at me for the length in that case. Basically, no pleasing everyone…or, in this case, anyone. Don’t watch it is my suggestion.
It’s not the length but the level of the video that’s the problem.
Something serious and scientific by an expert might be interesting, if it doesn’t exist as a published paper or article.
As I noted, this was an update, not a full video. I posted it because it had some new info that I found interesting. If you want a full video on this, there are plenty out there, but I’ve found when I’ve linked to long and involved videos they are even more flames at me than short, sweet ones that have ‘dumbed down’ things to a non-technical audience. Which I am, not being an archaeologist but interested in the subject.