"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:joMpj.546$v04.525@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Chess One wrote:
>>
>> To antiquarians this is but normal reception of observation. Indeed,
>> did not Sir Norman Lockyer, as astronomer royal, get the same
>> treatment from archaeologists, relatively recently? His observations
>> did not jive at all with recieved theorums of people [properly a
>> study of anthropology] in universtities, who mocked him, ad hominem,
>> instead of anything actually observed by their own process
>> [science!], and neither did they look at his evidential records -
>> dismissing all from their 'idea' of it.
>
> Two points:
>
> 1. Sir Norman Lockyer was not Astronomer Royal - in fact, he was an
> amateur astronomer.
>
> 2. He was wrong.
> --
Thank you Sir, for these assertions.
I do see that for 50 years he was editor of /nature/ magazine, and that he
and Penrose presented to the Royal Society in October 1901, then Lockyer
becoming president of the British Association. He also seemed to have
visited Cornwall in 1907 and instigated an astro-archaeological society -
Lord Falmouth being its first president. What seems significant about him
and his influence is that he, Somerville and Devoir were the first,
pre-Watkins, to notice /alignments/ of monoliths.
I may be mistaken, as you suggest about the Astronomer Royal, and I thank
you for your correction, which is of course proper as it examples a fact;
though your second comment examples nothing whatever, not of any fact nor
process, nor that archaeologists pretty successfully subverted this field
of
study for a hundred years - which is the contectual matter I wrote above.
Phil Innes
> John Briggs
>
>
|
