Tomb of Ramesses II Ramesses II, also known as Ramesses the Great, was buried in Tomb KV7, located in the Valley of the Kings, Egypt. He was the son of Seti I and Tuya and reigned from 1279 to 1213 BCE. He constructed monuments at Abu Simbel, Abydos, Rame sseum, L uxor, a nd Karnak. Coordinates 25.740776,32.601625 Description Current measurements divide the tomb into three levels: level 1, the entrance corridor; level 2, the pillared chamber; and level 3, the burial chamber and rooms. 3D mapping of the tomb enables measurements to be taken. Measurements Entrance corridor; 22.90m by 2.61m /44 by 5 cubits Floor area: 220 sq cubits Opening in corridor 8.35m by 8.35m by 3.7m Floor area: 70 sq m² Volume: 259m³/1795 cubit³ Room off corridor 7.85×8.48×3.10 m Floor area: 66.50 sq m Volume: 206.4 m³/1442.5 cubit³ Room off corridor (2) 5.38×3.30×2.63 m Floor area: 46.7 sq m Volume 46.7 m³/326.4 cubit³ End of corridor 6.3×5.72×2.82 Floor area: 36 sq m Volume: 101.6 m³/7...
Grange Stone Circle 
Grange stone circle (Lios na Gráinsí or Fort of the Grange)
The dating of the circle puts in between 2950-2850 bc (link below).
113 stones, which vary in composition,
86 limestone
24 volcanic breccia
2 sandstone
1 basalt
Description
Clay of 0.4m depth is said to be used as infill, with a 45.5m average diameter and a further smaller circle at 10° north and a sloping stone at 20° north.
The entrance is orientated towards 30° from the east. This doesn't necessarily mean it is forward aligned but rather 7-7.5° away from max tilt.
This is assuming that it was solstice aligned when constructed, as the case is with most, either representing equinox, solstice, sunrise, or sunset.
Analysis
Two unusual stones at 20° separation are points 45°/65° which most likely mark maximum tilt separation, 30° points at -30°, 30° and 60° mark 30° separation with the 45° point being 15° marking hours. The 65° at 5° separation is considered an authentication stone.
The idea of forward dating has been around for some time by 2900 bc. Markers would align east/west, and by subtracting the difference, the max tilt would add to the east/west alignment.
Grange stone circle (Lios na Gráinsí or Fort of the Grange)
The dating of the circle puts in between 2950-2850 bc (link below).
113 stones, which vary in composition,
86 limestone
24 volcanic breccia
2 sandstone
1 basalt
Description
Clay of 0.4m depth is said to be used as infill, with a 45.5m average diameter and a further smaller circle at 10° north and a sloping stone at 20° north.
The entrance is orientated towards 30° from the east. This doesn't necessarily mean it is forward aligned but rather 7-7.5° away from max tilt.
This is assuming that it was solstice aligned when constructed, as the case is with most, either representing equinox, solstice, sunrise, or sunset.
Analysis
Two unusual stones at 20° separation are points 45°/65° which most likely mark maximum tilt separation, 30° points at -30°, 30° and 60° mark 30° separation with the 45° point being 15° marking hours. The 65° at 5° separation is considered an authentication stone.
The idea of forward dating has been around for some time by 2900 bc. Markers would align east/west, and by subtracting the difference, the max tilt would add to the east/west alignment.
(So construction would align east/west at max tilt)
Another neolithic construction mentioned in another article is Mên-an-Tol, Nr Penzance, Cornwall. It is angled at 31° or 37.11°-31°=6.11° from 1985 (max tilt year, give or take a year).
In the same way, this circle can be considered for the same purpose. Similar measurements required an east/west marker, thus giving an angle of 37.11-30=7.11° (2602 bc).
Obliquity
6698−(2602+1985)=2111
2111×0.000117=0.246987
(24.68−0.246987)−23.43=1.003013
1.003013+7.11=8.113013
8.113013÷1.55=5.2342
5.2342×1000=5234.2
5234.202−1985=3249.2 bc
With obliquity, the date is 3249 bc, and without is 2602 bc. Both fall about 300 years either too low or too high off the latest dating of the circle.
It is possible that the circle links to a solar eclipse, which would have occurred sometime between 3249 and 2602 bc.
Measurement
Measurement is assumed from the entrance with an offset centre. This is 2° wide and could vary all angles by that amount.
So, assuming they would know this, then the 45° and 65° markers play a part in confirming that the angle of 30° is a correct measurement. The authentication stone at 5° offset along with 45° and 30° show that this is horizontally aligned and, at 2° offset, produces irrelevant numbers.
Location
Location and the difference off of a possible measurement point.
The location was probably at 13° (1:4.35), thus representing tilt about that time.
Coordinates
52.513982,-8.542329
52.613716,-8.224590
Subtracted
0.099734 and 0.317739
Obliquity
0.099734÷0.000117=852
Tilt
0.317739÷0.00155=205
After obliquity and tilt are applied, the numbers added to this location would give a number of 1057, but in a triangle, it gives an angle of 13.529° and slope of 876.
111.3194×0.317739=35.3705
111.3194×0.099734=11.1023
Using these two differences produces an angle of 72.6° and applied to the circle aligns the outer sloping stone (20° north) with the largest south facing stone from the main circle. This is probably an alignment error to confirm the use and location on the measuring point.
Another neolithic construction mentioned in another article is Mên-an-Tol, Nr Penzance, Cornwall. It is angled at 31° or 37.11°-31°=6.11° from 1985 (max tilt year, give or take a year).
In the same way, this circle can be considered for the same purpose. Similar measurements required an east/west marker, thus giving an angle of 37.11-30=7.11° (2602 bc).
Obliquity
6698−(2602+1985)=2111
2111×0.000117=0.246987
(24.68−0.246987)−23.43=1.003013
1.003013+7.11=8.113013
8.113013÷1.55=5.2342
5.2342×1000=5234.2
5234.202−1985=3249.2 bc
With obliquity, the date is 3249 bc, and without is 2602 bc. Both fall about 300 years either too low or too high off the latest dating of the circle.
It is possible that the circle links to a solar eclipse, which would have occurred sometime between 3249 and 2602 bc.
Measurement
Measurement is assumed from the entrance with an offset centre. This is 2° wide and could vary all angles by that amount.
So, assuming they would know this, then the 45° and 65° markers play a part in confirming that the angle of 30° is a correct measurement. The authentication stone at 5° offset along with 45° and 30° show that this is horizontally aligned and, at 2° offset, produces irrelevant numbers.
Location
Location and the difference off of a possible measurement point.
The location was probably at 13° (1:4.35), thus representing tilt about that time.
Coordinates
52.513982,-8.542329
52.613716,-8.224590
Subtracted
0.099734 and 0.317739
Obliquity
0.099734÷0.000117=852
Tilt
0.317739÷0.00155=205
After obliquity and tilt are applied, the numbers added to this location would give a number of 1057, but in a triangle, it gives an angle of 13.529° and slope of 876.
111.3194×0.317739=35.3705
111.3194×0.099734=11.1023
Using these two differences produces an angle of 72.6° and applied to the circle aligns the outer sloping stone (20° north) with the largest south facing stone from the main circle. This is probably an alignment error to confirm the use and location on the measuring point.
This, in turn, confirms the 7° offset and with the smaller circle and sloping stone at 10° intervals suggests the angle of 7.11° is used. (In turn also, and once a code is established, then this should also be used)
So if obliquity is added, then an angle of 1.003013°×10=10.03° should also be used.
The 10° offset is already used, so a distance is derived from the location marker (876) in a triangle of 10.03°.
The difference of base to slope is
889.576−876=13.57°
and height 154.935 converting into feet is 516.45 ft.
This distance then equals the distance of the -30° to the stone marker north of the smaller circle but not to the centre of the larger circle as might have been thought (linking with the solar eclipse).
Solar eclipse
There is also the solar eclipse, which is represented through the 65°, offset centre, and -30° (dating of which can not be confirmed).
As it was in an arc facing east, it would be similar to the solar eclipse in 2072, a location in the northern hemisphere.
Solstice
In the recent evaluation in the referenced paper, it is also defined as a sunrise on the winter solstice. Astrological significance also suggests sunset and moonrise being a factor of construction.
Conclusion
Although there are a number of Cairns and chamber tombs built alongside a circle or built together as part of one construction, this is not always the situation.
The 10° offset is already used, so a distance is derived from the location marker (876) in a triangle of 10.03°.
The difference of base to slope is
889.576−876=13.57°
and height 154.935 converting into feet is 516.45 ft.
This distance then equals the distance of the -30° to the stone marker north of the smaller circle but not to the centre of the larger circle as might have been thought (linking with the solar eclipse).
Solar eclipse
There is also the solar eclipse, which is represented through the 65°, offset centre, and -30° (dating of which can not be confirmed).
As it was in an arc facing east, it would be similar to the solar eclipse in 2072, a location in the northern hemisphere.
Solstice
In the recent evaluation in the referenced paper, it is also defined as a sunrise on the winter solstice. Astrological significance also suggests sunset and moonrise being a factor of construction.
Conclusion
Although there are a number of Cairns and chamber tombs built alongside a circle or built together as part of one construction, this is not always the situation.
Circles and Cairns are sometimes mistaken for their purpose. They appear in the form of sculptures, marker points along with tombs of an important person/persons or separate and having an astrological/astronomical or directional meaning and marker point.
This then suggests the upper date of 3249 bc and a return some 300 years later.
There, people could have left various offerings in a small way, suggesting including obliquity.
Alternate Conclusions
Grange Stone Circle
Archeology77 ©
Alternate Conclusions
Grange Stone Circle
Archeology77 ©
Comments
Post a Comment