The technology is not in the gnomon itself but in the method used to measure the length of the shadow.
The earliest measurements of the shadow's length were no doubt made with the foot-rules of the time, but as it was realised that these varied
according to bureaucratic prescription and local custom, a standard jade tablet (thu kuei), which may be called the Gnomon Shadow Template, was made
for this purpose only. It is mentioned in the Chou Li, and actual specimens, made of terra-cotta, one dated +164 are extant.
The moment of the solstice could thus be determined by placing the calibrated template at the base of the post due north for several days around
the expected time, and taking noon of the day when the shadow most nearly coincided with it.
The purpose of the gnomon was to determine the day the solstice occurred. A template was adopted because of the inconsistency of other methods of
The template system was an attempt to overcome the chaos of primitive metrology, and did not persist...In +500 Tsu Keng-Chih made bronze
instruments in which the gnomon and a horizontal measuring scale were combined. About fifty years earlier Ho Cheng-Thien had proceeded to more careful
observations of the winter solstice shadow.
So there was an improvement in Chinese technology around the time of the 6th century and that is apparent in the consistency of the measurements after
then. At that point the variation from the calculated obliquity varies by amounts of less than 1/10º (.083º). With an 8 foot gnomon that is a
difference in shadow length of less than 1/5". A difference in timing of a few minutes and/or leveling errors can easily account for such a small
I guess you didn't notice that I did address them.
The solstice measurement for Stonehenge corresponds to a date of around 2500BC, which is also the presumed date of its construction as determined by
carbon dating. It is not placed in the correct position on the graph and does not fit Dodwell's curve.
Since it is not clear that Karnak was constructed in alignment with the solstice its use is not reliable. Calculated obliquity never reaches that
alignment of Karnak. However, since it is known that the existing structures at the site date from after the time of Amenemhat I, the date of 2045BC
is off by at least several hundred years. If the data point did represent a true solstice measurement, it is at the wrong point on the x axis of the
graph and does not fit Dodwell's curve.
The 'improved technology' was the discovery of precession and that earth tilts on its axis - something not known to those who erected earlier
gnomons. Thus they became more accurate.
Precession does not influence the amount that the earth's axis is tilted by at any given period of time.
And it was by the use of the gnomon in abcient times and those observations that it was eventually deduced that the earth did indeed have a
significant tilt. The angular values obtained by "reading" the gnomon gave the actual tilt amount.
btw how do we know the exact angle and position to which an ancient gnomon was set? Or do we presume it was set to the angle necessary to fit our
There were only 2 essential physical conditions that had to be met for the gnomon to be used accurately.
Firstly, the ground that the gnomon was erected on had to be perfectly level. There are many ways of ensuring this e.g. using a water level.
Secondly, the wooden/metal pole had to be placed in the ground perfectly upright. In other words, at right angles to the ground. There are many
ways of ensuring this e.g. plumb bob.
And does stonehenge fit with 350BC because it was re-erected incorrectly by the Victorians
The 350 BC date was specified because it was in this time period that the summer solstitial sun would rise directly above the center of the
main avenue leading away from the Stonehenge complex.
Note that this does not in any way imply that Stonehenge itself was built in 350 BC, only that work may have been carried out on that date to ensure
that the main avenue lined up perfectly with the summer solstice sunrise. Stonehenge itself was built much, much earlier than that date.
Tauristercus ever try the calculations for the Axis Tilt for Tiwanaku just to see if it matches up with the Ancient old world tilt theory's
Just Make Sure you to take those Measurements
at the Archway of the temple The entrance (archway)of the Kalasasaya. and not the Gateway of the Sun
as it is claimed not to be at the exact location
The estimates are claimed to be 17 years old..
During the time of the Deluge ?
The Structures of Puma Punku are more complex then any Old World Ruins is there any others ?
perfect joint cuts in stone not even a razer blade can not penetrate
parts of the ruins made of stone (diorite ) so hard that only a diamond can be used to make a Perfect cut, Machinist Carved Stones ? or a
precised Lazar might able to do the job or High extreme water pressure cutter.. would be a candidate but that is just what we are able to do in
modern present world ..
Is there still interest in this thread? I have some questions for tauristercus.
a) In converting to the Lieske values you have added another three centuries to table. That changes the constant in the Dodwell formula. (the
2.14592 should become reduced). How will that effect the curve?
b) The cutoff date of 2345 bce appears to have been chosen datum. Had it been an earlier date it would still give similar results. Correct?
c)Do you know if the source data (ie scans of the Dodwell manuscript) is available?
The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.
All content copyright 2013, The Above Network, LLC.