{The History of Art[:]}{The Paleolithic Period [continued (12)]}{The 65,536 year question}[7th November 1990]

[Redbook8:94-95][19901107:1007j]{The History of Art[:]}{The Paleolithic Period [continued (12)]}{The 65,536 year question}[7th November 1990]

19901107.1007

[continued]

☼

The importance of the possible C[ircles] A[nalysis] & S[ynthesis] fit[,] to me[,] is that it enables us to draw a larger[-]scale pattern down to our own day:

	|
–	+	–
	|

*

(or shift all [of the pattern] 2048 years back (left)).

This does tend to indicate that the year 0ce was a more significant C than ours (2048[ce]), but that the beginning of the Holocene Age was equally important. If you pushed the scale** 2048 years in the other direction, ie backwards, you would gain little, as far as I can see, given the margins of error in dating the beginnings of Upper Paleolithic and Holocene;**** but the sudden multiplication of historical urban cultures at c2048bce would fit well with a new 8192 year period starting then.****

#

*[Unclear whether the ms diagram which this table represents has any significance, or was perhaps the start of soemthing which was not completed.]

** ref [[Redbook8:28-29][19901015:1710]{Four Thousand Years BC[E]}*[15th October 1990],] 28-29

***(ie 10,000 years ago)

****cf VII [[Redbook7:309][19900918:1040b]{4096-year Cycles (1)}[18th September 1990]&f,] 309,

[[Redbook7:330-331][19900924:1315]{4096-year Cycles (2)}[24th September 1990]&f,] 330,

[[Redbook7:345][19900930:1108b]{4,096 year Cycles (3)}[30th September 1990],] 345

#{-- more of a G~ degree – multiplication, and culture, I should have thought}

[continued]

[PostedBlogger01092022]