Electric                    Astral               Pre-historical
Universe              Catastrophism        Reconstruction


     Mikamar
           Publishing
 

Articles & Products Supporting the Pre-historical Reconstruction and Plasma Cosmology
 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store       used books        contact

Site Section Links

Introduction Material
Articles
The Third Story
Features

Cosmology, Origins
The Nature of Time
Nature of Time video
The Nature of Space
The Neutrino Aether
Nature of Force Fields
Relativity Theory

Geophysical Material
Origin of Modern Geology
Niagara Falls Issues
Climate Change Model
Climate Change Questions

Philosophy Material
Philosophy Links

Reconstruction &
Mythology Material
Modern Mythology Material
Language/Symbol Development
1994 Velikovsky Symposium
Horus Journals TOC
Kronos Journals TOC
Pensee Journals TOC
Velikovskian Journals TOC
Selected Velikovskian Article

Miscellaneous Material
Modern Mythology
State of Religious Diversity
PDF Download Files
Open letter to science editors

 

Krupp And Velikovsky

THOMAS McCREERY

Always aware that Immanuel Velikovsky remains its most deadly enemy, the academic establishment can never go for long without firing new salvos at this man's innovation. Now, E. C. Krupp, the Director of the Griffith Observatory in one of the chapters of In Search of Ancient Astronomies has given it a turn. Krupp's critique mirrors perfectly the general attitude of the establishment towards Velikovsky, where the normal virtues of tolerance, integrity, and competence are inconspicuous whenever orthodox apologists debate him. Once again, Velikovsky is attacked not for what he has written for Krupp has patently not read the relevant works but for what Krupp thinks he has written.

Krupp's interpretation is presumably based on the hoary canards foisted on Worlds in Collision since its publication. His arguments against Velikovsky's thesis can be grouped into two parts: Those dealing with the nature of comets (Venus included) and those dealing with the effects of disturbances in the Earth's motion. The first section is positively banal. By comparison, similar asinine attempts by Asimov, Gardner, et al. appear as models of accurate scholarship. The other section at least has the merit of introducing some original arguments which may, however, lead some critics to place In Search of Ancient Astronomies with Scientists Confront Velikovsky as definitive refutations of Worlds in Collision. Therefore, Krupp's criticisms are repudiated in some detail below.

The section dealing with the nature of comets and the incompatibility of Velikovsky's vision of Venus with that of normal science is one long sequence of errors and non sequiturs. Consider Krupp's explanation of Velikovsky's contention that Venus would be found to be abnormally hot:

"Like most objects in interplanetary space comets are not hot. The atoms which evaporate from their nucleus may be at high temperatures, but there are so few of them, there is no heat to speak of. Yet this alleged cometary heat is the source of Velikovsky's much-touted 'prediction' of the high temperature of Venus."(1)

Two paragraphs later, however, Krupp changes his mind:

"Venus is imagined by Velikovsky to be an ejected comet which, through adolescent collisions with the adults of the solar system, was heated to incandescence."(2)

At this juncture, Krupp should have been looking for editorial assistance. This farrago reminds one of Truzzi's dictum:

"Very much if not most of the criticism of Velikovsky remains badly done. His critics misread him and often do not do their 'homework' properly."(3)

Krupp is actually an advance on this for he is unable to even read Krupp properly! A careful reading of the literature would surely convince one that Velikovsky ascribes the high temperature of Venus to a succession of events:

"Venus experienced in quick succession its birth and expulsion under violent conditions: an existence as a comet on an ellipse which approached the sun closely; two encounters with the earth accompanied by discharges of potentials between these two bodies and with a thermal effect caused by conversion of momentum into heat; a number of contacts with Mars and probably also with Jupiter. Since all of this happened between the third and the first millennia before the present era, the core of the planet Venus must still be hot."(4)

Krupp, instead of reading Worlds in Collision, has simply repeated Sagan's erroneous assertions(5) concerning Velikovsky's successful prediction of the high temperature of Venus, unmindful of the fact (quite obviously displayed in the British edition of ISAA) that Sagan had been decisively refuted in Velikovsky and Establishment Science.(6)

Throughout Worlds in Collision, Velikovsky emphasised Venus' disturbed motion(7) and this was later given astronomical weight by the discovery that Venus rotated retrogradely.(8) Krupp does not mention this nor does he note the unaccountable discrepancy between Venus' retrograde axial period of 243 days and its equatorial atmospheric rotation of 4.1 days. As Firsoff remarked, "not only is this situation intrinsically incredible, it still lacks satisfactory explanation".(9) A Velikovskian perspective might shed some light on these problems but Krupp, of course, chooses to ignore this possibility.

Krupp's second section deals with changes in the Earth's orientation and motion due to its near collisions with Venus and Mars. According to Velikovsky, these collisions produced the following effects:

(a) A reversal of the Earth's magnetic field.
(b) A change in the rate of the Earth's rotation.
(c) A change in the geographical location of the poles.
(d) A change in the period of the Earth's revolution around the Sun.
(e) A change in the alignment of the Earth's axis in space.

Krupp's objections to these changes and reversals will be dealt with chronologically.

(a) Krupp states that paleomagnetism of rocks at the bottom of the Atlantic indicates that the last magnetic reversal took place about 30,000 years ago and that this invalidates Velikovsky's claim that reversals took place in the 15th, 8th, and 7th centuries B.C. Krupp's argument, as usual, is based on inadequate and biased surveys of the relevant literature as well as Velikovsky's own books. As Krupp should no doubt be aware, there are immense difficulties associated with the study of paleomagnetism, particularly with the detection of short-lived magnetic field reversals:

"During such (short-lived geomagnetic) events the virtual geomagnetic pole undergoes excursions outside the usual range of secular variation but they are usually brief, generally lasting about 10^5 yrs so that their magnetic record in deep sea sediments is often lost because of depositional demagnetism and because of biological activity in the upper few decimeters of the sediments."(10)

"Short events are only recorded occasionally in stratigraphical sequences, for example, during periods of rapid sedimentation or if the record is continuous or samples are very closely spaced. If the chronology is not very exact even these occasional records cannot usually be reliably correlated making it difficult to distinguish between 'noise' and real events."(11)

In an effort to correlate the Laschamp event with sediments from Mono Lake, California, Denham and Cox were not able to detect episodes less than 1700 years in length.(12)

Any competent worker in the field of paleomagnetism would concede that the magnetic field reversals described by Velikovsky which are of very short duration, of the order of a few hundred years would be inordinately difficult to detect. In this case, absence of evidence for recent magnetic field reversals would not of itself constitute a viable argument against Velikovsky's position. Moreover, Krupp's attempt to discredit Velikovsky is further blunted when the current paleomagnetic literature is taken into consideration; and he is quite obviously unaware of many important papers dealing with recent reversals.

For example, a Columbia University team(13) investigating the Pacific and Atlantic deep sea beds found evidence of a common reversal about 7,000 years ago and correlated this with the Laschamp event. Additionally, one of the most distinguished of contemporary geologists, Rhodes W. Fairbridge,(14) has strongly advanced the merits of the Gothenberg event ca. 13,000 B.C. as being a world-wide phenomenon.

Krupp's knowledge of paleomagnetism seems at variance with authorities in the field; and it ill behooves him to attack Velikovsky on magnetic field reversals. Velikovsky's approach in this matter, like his approach elsewhere, is that of the objective scholar. By contrast, Krupp's attitude reveals dogmatic prejudice.

Consider Velikovsky's treatment of historical magnetic field reversals. Carefully investigating the literature at the time of writing Earth in Upheaval (ca. 1952-1955), he found powerful evidence for a major disturbance of the Earth's magnetic field ca. 800 B.C., and quoted the works of Folgheraiter and Mercanton to show that the Earth's magnetic field reversed in Italy and Greece at that time.(15) Additional support has since come from more recent sources such as Noel and Tarling (1975) who state:

"Studies of the unvarved sequences indicate anomalous changes in declination and low inclination values around 860 B.C. This may represent a more recent geomagnetic event, the Starno event, and may be the reversal reported by Ransom on the basis of archaeomagnetic studies by Folgheraiter and Mercanton on contemporary fired clay and pottery from Greece and Bavaria."(16)

Other recent papers support this viewpoint. Turner and Thompson (1978),(17) examining sediments from Loch Lomond, Scotland, reported a large magnetic declination swing in the middle of the first half of the first millennium B.C. This is in very good agreement with similar findings at Lake Windermere, England (1971).(18) For someone who obviously regards himself as an authority on paleomagnetism, Krupp seems lamentably ignorant of the facts concerning the archaeological and geological record of the Earth's magnetic field.

On the other hand, it would appear that Velikovsky's position vis-à-vis historic magnetic field reversals given the incredible difficulty of detecting short-lived events is immeasurably strengthened since the magnetic disturbance ca. 800 B.C. must have been massive to have left any impression at all. To add to this, there is further evidence that the terrestrial magnetic field was actually "disturbed" in the first millennium B.C. and this comes from research into the intensity of the Earth's magnetic field in historical times. Figure 1 shows the reduced magnetic dipole moment of the Earth, calculated from a variety of sources, over the last five thousand years. All known determinations of the ancient geomagnetic field known to the graph's compiler as of 1966 are shown, so the figure is both comprehensive and authoritative.

[*!* Image] Fig. 1. Historic and archaeological reduced dipole moments plotted against time. Times A.D. are expressed as positive numbers; times B.C. are expressed as negative numbers. * Thellier & Thellier; o Burlatskaya; x Sasajima & Maenaka; + Nagata, Arai & Momose; ^ Nagata, Kobayashi & Schwarz.

It is seen that the intensity of the field changed markedly between 1,000 and 0 B.C. It is generally accepted that the terrestrial magnetic field depends on the Earth's rotation, although the precise relationship has not yet been established. It would appear that there may be some correlation between the reported changes in magnetic declination and inclination ca. 800 B.C. and the magnetic field intensity. Possibly, the same event or events caused both sets of anomalies.

I have shown, in this section, that a review of the archaeological and historical evidence concerning the recent history of the terrestrial magnetic field provides striking confirmation of a drastic change in the first half of the first millennium B.C.; and this is in agreement with Velikovsky's thesis. As the paleomagnetic evidence accumulates, Velikovsky's position continues to be strengthened, though evidence for a similar event in the 15th century B.C. is missing at present from the record. However, in view of the evidence put forward previously, detection in the geological record is virtually impossible, especially with regard to the close spacing 52 years between the Venus/Earth encounters.

Two reversals within such a short period of time would leave a negligible trace on the geological record while the paucity of archaeological samples from this period (as seen from Figure 1) leaves the matter temporarily undecided. It is, nevertheless, of more than passing interest to note that there are magnetic declination inflections ca. 1500 B.C. at both Loch Lomond and Lake Windermere of the type advocated by Warlow.(19) Taken within a catastrophic context, these indicate a double magnetic reversal occurring in quick succession.

(b) In order to prove that the Earth's rotation has not changed, Krupp repeats Asimov's canard regarding the breakage of stalactites and stalagmites in the world's limestone caves.(20) Krupp adds his own touch by specifying the Carlsbad Caverns,(21) though he surely must have known that even Sagan saw through the falsehood of this whole argument.(22)

(c) Krupp claims that a change in the Earth's geographical poles since 1500 B.C. is negated by the accurate alignment of the Great Pyramid at Giza with the cardinal directions. Again, Krupp seems to be unaware that Velikovsky himself had already countered this argument;(23) and though Cardona has not accepted Velikovsky's explanation in its entirety,(24) both investigators have indicated that there is nothing erroneous in the supposition that the Earth's tilt could have subsequently corrected itself.

(d & e) The megalithic sites at Ballochroy and Kintraw are used by Krupp as evidence that the distance from the Earth to the Sun has not changed in recent times as neither has the alignment of the Earth's axis. Here Krupp states:

"Both alignments [those of Ballochroy and Kintraw], if corrected for the apparent radius of the sun, give the same declination for the sun's center. This is an impressive confirmation of the astronomically precise character of these two independent sites. It also permits us to deduce that the apparent diameter of the sun today, 32 arc minutes, was the apparent diameter before Velikovskian calamity. If the sun appeared to be the same size, it was the same distance from the earth. The orbital period could not have changed."(25)

"Thom's precision solar observatories for example, those at Ballochroy and Kintraw, pin down the obliquity of the ecliptic for an epoch prior to 1500 B.C. The stones were set up no later than 1800 B.C., and they accurately indicate, through distant foresights, the setting points of the sun at winter and summer solstice for that epoch. Only a 180-degree change in the position of the celestial poles could duplicate the precise solar alignments. Any other change would require different foresights for the geographical locations of the various solar observatories."(26)

Since it appears that Thom's work is to be considered the last weapon in the now depleted armoury of Establishment Science, a summary of the present standing of Thom's hypotheses on megalithic astronomy is in order.

Ever since the publication of his work in the mid-sixties, Thom's ideas have provoked enormous interest among astronomers and prehistorians alike. This has led, on the one hand, to a renewed interest in archaeoastronomy; on the other, it seems to have culminated in a decided impasse between orthodox archaeologists and those calling for the radical rewriting of Northwest Europe's prehistory that the acceptance of Thom's ideas requires. Until recently, this confrontation appeared incapable of resolution because both sides were unable to debate on common ground, preferring to argue from within their own areas of specialisation. The issue was further complicated by the nature of Thom's publications which prove difficult reading even to some scientists while being positively recondite to others. But mainly the issue remained unsettled through the absence of independent checks on Thom's work. Recently, however, due to the emergence of new archaeological and scientific evidence, the dispute is being quickly resolved in favour of traditional prehistory.

Archaeologists tend to dismiss Thom's work on at least three major counts. Firstly, no evidence of the hierarchical society required to sustain "the astronomer priesthood" that Thom and his supporters envisage has been found. In fact, traditional prehistorians see the megalith-constructing societies as primarily egalitarian. Secondly, the megaliths have now been found to be not only older than was previously believed but their construction seems to have occupied a longer time span. The erection of the stone rings, and presumably other menhirs, began about 3200 B.C. and continued until 2000 B.C.(27)

Through astronomical retrocalculation, Thom dated his stellar lines at ca. 2000-1600 B.C., the solar lines at Kintraw and Ballochroy at ca. 1650 + 80 B.C., and arrived at a mean dating of 1580 + 100 B.C. for his lunar lines. The discrepancy between the above dates and the revised archaeological ones has now forced Thom to abandon his stellar lines.(28) Since these were the sole set of alignments carrying statistical weight Thom had shown that the number of his stellar lines far exceeded what might have been expected by chance(29) megalithic astronomy in general, and Thom's brand of it in particular, has been pushed into a virtually irreconcilable predicament, the implications of which must inevitably reverberate throughout the entire science of archaeoastronomy. For, if Thom's stellar lines are now untenable, how viable is the remainder of that proliferation of ad hoc hypotheses that, by their very nature, carry negligible statistical significance? The problem for Thom is specific: the logic of the situation implies that if the stellar lines be rejected because of dating discrepancies, why not the solar and lunar lines as well since they, too, have been dated by the same astronomical retrocalculation techniques?

Lastly, archaeologists are decidedly inimical to Thom's approach at many of the megalithic sites where he simply groups together various structural components, oblivious that they were erected at different periods of time, presumably by different cultural elements. His astronomical theories are therefore based on the erroneous consideration that the components are synchronous in time. Such disdain for archaeological procedures has brought Thom much deserved criticism. For example, consider Sara Champion's review of the Thom chapter in In Search of Ancient Astronomies:

"Thom's eminence in the field is largely based on the accuracy of his measurements and the precision of his analysis. Recent papers and reviews have, however, cast doubt on some of his figures, with serious results for his megalithic yard and megalithic calendar (Moir et al. Antiquity LIV, 37-43, 1980). Misidentification of archaeological monuments has resulted in Thom's describing hut circles and enclosures as stone circles of megalithic type, and some of the lines of foresight suggested for certain sites are shown in the field to be below horizon level, difficult to see without binoculars or blocked by natural features not obvious from maps."(30)

Although Thom can be discounted on archaeological grounds alone, other recent literature corroborates this.(31) In his diatribe against Velikovsky, Krupp mentions in particular three megalithic sites Kintraw, Ballochroy, and Temple Wood obviously subsumed in the general rejection of Thom's work. It is worth noting, though, that Krupp concludes his attempted demolition of Velikovsky on archaeoastronomical grounds with the ultimate ludicrousness:

"The moon, for example, must have been badly jostled in its orbit by the alleged near-encounters of Venus and Mars. Archaeoastronomy provides us with sites like Temple Wood, in Argyll, however, which antedate the Venus collisions and yet which are accurately aligned on significant moonsets, as we might expect had no collisions occurred at all."(32)

Unfortunately for Krupp, even if we ignore the archaeological evidence, Jon Patrick's authoritative paper on Temple Wood has shown that this site has no connection with lunar observations at all. Of all the sites that Krupp could have chosen, the one he selected has as much connection with lunar observations as the White House or the Kremlin.(33)

To conclude this section on the demise of Thom's megalithic astronomy I quote a most considered opinion, that of Professor Glyn Daniel, on the most "recent state of the art" concerning megalithic science:

"The astronomical purpose of Stonehenge and other stone rings was not seriously argued until after World War II, when Gerald S. Hawkins of Boston University proposed in his book Stonehenge Decoded (1966) that the monument was a giant calculator for the prediction of eclipses, both lunar and solar. Five years later Thom, in his book Megalithic Lunar Observatories, postulated that many megalithic monuments served for observation of the movements and phases of the moon. Thom's surveys had already led him to argue for the existence of a megalithic 'yard' measuring 2.72 feet and to suggest that the builders of stone rings had a knowledge of Pythagorean geometry 2,000 years or more before the Greeks. These are extravagant and unconvincing claims; what the builders of megaliths had was a practical knowledge of laying out right-angled triangles.

"Many people, no doubt bored by the prosaic account of megaliths to be got from archaeological research, jumped on the Hawkins-Thom bandwagon, accepting the builders of megaliths not only as experts in Pythagorean geometry and possessors of accurate units of mensuration but also as skilled astronomers who studied eclipses, the movements of the moon and the positions of the stars. To me this is a kind of refined academic version of astronaut archaeology. The archaeoastronomy buffs, although they very properly eschew wise men from outer space, very improperly insist on the presence in ancient Europe of wise men with an apparently religious passion for astronomy. It seems to me that the case for interpreting megalithic monuments as astronomical observatories has never been proved. The interpretations appear to be subjective and imposed by the observer. Already new surveys are showing the inaccuracy of some of the earlier observations and undermining the hopes of those who believe the builders of megaliths were slaves of an astronomical cult."(34)

Krupp's sorry little exercise is noted, as previous forays by others against Velikovsky have been, for its manifest inaccuracies and peer group conceit. However, in addition to these flaws, Krupp appears as a model of calculated hypocrisy. In the prologue to his discussion on "unorthodoxies", Krupp maintains that "when the name of science is invoked in support of 'worlds in collision' . . . the data must be handled in accordance with the rules of scientific evidence" and that Velikovsky's supporters "have been substituting self-righteous rage for rational argument".(35) The reader of this rebuttal will have observed that Krupp's explanation of the temperature of Venus is hardly rational and that Krupp, in obvious neglect of his demand that data should be handled properly, deliberately misuses such data in his attempt to discredit Velikovsky.

Consider the following statement which Krupp used as evidence in support of the regularity of the Earth's motions:

"After known corrections for precession are made, the so called air shafts of the Great Pyramid align with the circumpolar star Thuban, in Draco, and the stars of Orion's belt. Textual evidence supports the significance of these directed shafts. A shift in the geographic pole would destroy the northern shaft's alignment. A shift in the celestial pole would ruin the south's."(36)

And yet, on an earlier page, Krupp exhibited reservations concerning the very astronomical significance of these shafts.

"Shafts which lead from the King's Chamber of the Great Pyramid open on its north and south faces. The north shaft is slanted 31 degrees above the level. The Great Pyramid is situated about 1-1/3 miles south of the 30-degree parallel of latitude, and this so-called ventilation shaft may have been oriented toward the north pole or, more precisely, toward the upper culmination of the star Thuban, in the constellation Draco.

"The other ventilation shaft extends at an angle of 44 degrees 5 minutes from the King's Chamber to the Great Pyramid's south face. It has been calculated by Trimble and Badawy that Alnilan, the central star in Orion's belt, would have transited at this angle at the time the pyramid was built. It is doubtful, however, that either shaft was intended as a sighting tube" (emphasis added).(37)

Can Krupp explain why he is allowed license, when attacking Velikovsky, to utilise as definitive "evidence" that which he himself has reservations about? A double standard seems to apply here which smells terribly of charlatanry. Archaeologists, incidentally, have even more reservations about Trimble's theory. For example, Edwards whom even Krupp rightly acknowledges as the foremost authority on the Egyptian pyramids while fully aware of Trimble's claim, has this to say:

"The object of these shafts is not known with certainty; they may have been designed for the ventilation of the chamber or for some religious purpose which is still open to conjecture."(38)

Limitations of time and space preclude further exposure of Krupp's critique.* In any case, it is only one in a long line of undistinguished failures. Will Establishment Science ever realise the obvious reason behind these recurring debacles?

* Editor's Note: An additional rejoinder to Krupp by this journal's Editor-in-Chief, titled "In Search of Krupp", will be forthcoming in a future issue of KRONOS. LMG

REFERENCES

1. E. C. Krupp, et al., In Search of Ancient Astronomies (N. Y., 1977; London, 1980), p. 246 (224). N.B. the parenthetical numbers refer to the British edition.
2. Ibid.
3. SIS Review IV:1 (Autumn; 1979), p. 28. Review of Zetetic Scholar Nos. 3 and 4 (April 1979 double issue).
4. I. Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision (N. Y., 1950), "The Thermal Balance of Venus".
5. D. Goldsmith (ed.), Scientists Confront Velikovsky (Ithaca and London, 1977), pp. 78-83.
6. L. M. Greenberg (ed.), Velikovsky and Establishment Science (KRONOS III: 2, Winter 1977), pp. 47-48, 96-98.
7. I. Velikovsky, op. cit., passim.
8. Report to the meeting of the American Geophysical Union at Palo Alto by R. M. Goldstein and R. L. Carpenter, December 1962. See Yale Scientific Magazine (April, 1967), p. 11.
9. A. Firsoff Journal of the British Astronomical Association, 89, 1 (1978), pp. 3846; reprinted in KRONOS V:2 (Winter 1980), pp. 57-65.
10. Noel and Tarling, Nature, 253 (1975), pp. 705-706.
11. Morner and Lanser, Nature, 251 (1974), pp. 408-409.
12. Denham and Cox, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 13 (1971), pp. 181-190.
13. Wollin, et al., Ibid., 12 (1971), pp. 175-183.
14. Fairbridge, Nature, 265 (1977), pp. 430-431.
15. I. Velikovsky, Earth in Upheaval (N. Y., 1955), "Magnetic Poles Reversed".
16. Noel and Tarling, op. cit.
17. Turner and Thompson, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 42 (1979), pp. 412-426.
18. Mackereth, Ibid., 12 (1971), pp. 332-338.
19. P. Warlow, "Geomagnetic Reversals?" in the Journal of Physics, A, 11, No. 10 (October, 1978), pp. 2107-2130; reprinted in SIS Review III:4 (Spring, 1979), pp. 100-112.
20. I. Asimov, The Stars in their Courses (N. Y., 1971), pp. 52-53.
21. Krupp, op. cit, p. 249 (227).
22. C. Sagan, at the AAAS Symposium on "Velikovsky's Challenge to Science" held in San Francisco, February 1974. Also see note No. 5, p. 64.
23. I. Velikovsky, "A Rejoinder to Burgstahler and Angino," Yale Scientific Magazine, Vol. XLI, No. 7 (April, 1967), p. 22; Idem, "The Orientation of the Pyramids," Pensée IVR III (Winter, 1973), p. 17.
24. D. Cardona, "The Pyramids and Earth's Axis," Pensée IVR VI (Winter, 1973-74), p. 66.
25. Krupp, op. cit., p. 250 (229).
26. Ibid., p. 249 (227).
27. C. B. Burgess, The Age of Stonehenge (London, 1980), passim. Additionally, at the recent conference on Megalithic Science at Newcastle University, March 28-30, 1980, several papers read by Moir, Ruggles, and Patrick disputed most of Thom's results. The Proceedings of the conference are scheduled to be published under the auspices of the British Archaeological Society sometime in 1981.
28. A. & A. S. Thom, Megalithic Remains in Britain and Brittany (Oxford, 1978), p. 5.
29. A. Thom, "A Statistical Examination of Megalithic Sites in Britain, "Journal of the Royal Statistical Society " A, 118 (1955), pp. 275-291; D. C. Heggie, "Megalithic Science Fact or Fiction?" Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 18, No. 4 (1977), p. 454.
30. S. Champion, Nature, 284 (April 1980), pp. 674-675; reprinted in KRONOS VI:2 (Winter 1981), pp. 69-71.
31. P. R. Freeman and W. Elmore, "A Further Test for the Significance of Astronomical Alignments," Archaeoastronomy: Supplement to the Journal for the History of Astronomy (June 1979); Jon Patrick, "A Reassessment of the Lunar Observatory Hypotheses for the Kilmartin Stones," in Ibid.; G. Moir, "A Review of the Megalithic Lunar Lines," Northern Archaeology, l (1980); Idem, "Standing Stones and Astronomy m the Outer Hebrides," Newsletter of the Northumberland Archaeological Group, 2 (1978), pp. 13-23.
32. Krupp, op. cit., p. 252 (229).
33. J. Patrick, op. cit.
34. G. Daniel, Scientific American, 243 (July, 1980), p. 85.
35. Krupp, op. cit. p. 242 (220).
36. Ibid., pp. 249-250 (227).
37. Ibid., p. 233 (212).
38. I. E. S. Edwards, The Pyramids of Egypt (revised Pelican edition, 1976), p. 126.

[*!* Image] General view of Stonehenge. (Photo by Ken D. Moss).

 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store        policies        contact
Mikamar Publishing, 16871 SE 80th Pl,  Portland  OR  97267       503-974-9665