Stonehenge Documentation was: Re: Archival storage
Bob at BRADLEE.ORG
Wed Oct 12 09:19:19 CDT 2005
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:29:20 -0600, woodelf wrote:
>Fred Cisin wrote
>>Yes, but nobody remembers how to read Stonehenge.
>There is nothing there to READ. Just a big analog? computer to calculate
>the seasons and stuff with the sun and moon. The problem is the program
>works only for where stonehenge is today ... It is the lack of doc's that
For fear of driving Sellam off in nausea for keeping this thread alive :)
I will keep completely off topic, and brief,. You struck a nerve with Stonehenge documentation
as I am currently writing a book on the subject of the documentation surrounding stonehenge.
If you were to look closely, you would find that there is quite a lot of documentation
about stonehenge dating from the first surviving written reference to Stonehenge,
dating back to the Norman Conquest of 1066 AD.
It was not until 1719 when William Stukeley first visited Stonehenge on May 18-19th, 1719, and
returned on many occasions to carry out fieldwork Stukeley was the first to pointed out that
Stonehenge had solar and lunar significance.
1934 - Alexander Thom had become interested in prehistoric stone circles and their astronomical
associations. The nature of his interests is expressed in an article he published in 1951 in the
Journal of the British Astronomical Association entitled "The solar observations of megalithic man."
The 1960s brought the System 360 and new wave of interest in Stonehenge. Publications by
Gerald S. Hawkins and John Michell "A Little History of Astro-Archaeology"
all claiming complex geometric and astronomical alignments for the site.
An old friend and regular contributor Bill Kramer has a good read on the subject.
"The Stonehenge Eclipse Calculator" documents the use of stonehenge as an eclipse calculator.
As for the original topic : Re: Archival storage ?
My suggestion is to uses an Epson photo 2200 on 13x19 archival paper using archival ink at what ever density <2800 dpi you can get away with :)
The paper and ink costs would go up a bit, but it would be many fewer reams of paper :)
I agree with Sellam and others, we are now beating the spot where the horse died yesterday.
But for the record, in this day in age the rule is to have 3 or more copies of everything important with at least one on the shelf, and a live backup colocated in a remote location or data center
Please reply off list to this mutterings as I have wasted far too much bandwidth already with this Google fodder ....
BTW: is there an indexed archive of this list ?
More information about the cctalk