Very interesting subject.
Certainly related with the (adjusted/new) chronolgy topic.
It can become quite mindboggling when trying to fit the following into one
- the Aldland submersion (2194 BC) whereafter the sun rose lower
- hence the becoming obsolete of the then used sun observatories
fe see quote of the article
"The sun shone through these passages on the shortest and longest day of the year. "People used the calendar to determine important moments like feast and harvest days," the researchers conclude.
If they were used before Aldland sank (the sun rose higher), they had to become obsolete thereafter.
So this is an anamoly in the idea i write here, if the researchers can conclude it in modern time that the sun came in these passages. Unless those observatories date after the submersion of Aldland, then it fits.
Another thing i can't understand if people had observatories before Aldland sank, is that OLB mentions litteraly that years weren't counted, because one year was as joyfull as the other. If you use obeservatories to pinpoint special events during the year, why not having the years counted? Maybe not to take litteraly? I am not sure about this one.
Here again: it fits well when the observatories date from after Aldland sank.
- the second 'bad time', dated 1888 years after 2194 BC = 305 BC (this is all taking Kersten=Christ, modern interpretation).
If we take Kersten as the Kersten of the OLB (=Budha) the year of the second 'bad time' falls on 288 after Kersten=Budha.
So 3rd century after Kersten=Budha.
In the link below (excuse for not translated, but i assume readers can manage to do it theirselves with google translate) about the Nehellenia finds, they date some altars to approx 3th century AD (Christ modern interpretation).
"Op 14 april 1970 trof schipper K.J. Bout uit Tholen bij het vissen in de Oosterschelde nabij Colijnsplaat vier brokken steen in zijn netten aan.
Het bleken stukken van twee altaren uit de Romeinse tijd
...
Enkele altaren en stijlkenmerken van sommige stukken leidden tot een datering rond het jaar 200 na Chr. Waarschijnlijk is het heiligdom in de 3de eeuw door het water verzwolgen."
https://www.rmo.nl/museumkennis/archeol ... -en-beeld/
In OLB's (second) hard time this is described as follows
"De wouden, waarin beelden waren, werden opgeheven en een spel der winden."
"Er kwam ebbe en de wouden met de beelden dreven naar zee."
Another (for me at least) intresting point is the orientation used to describe Frya's land in good times. It seems rotated for at least 45 degree's. Twiskland in the south of Frya's land. Nord sea in the north, the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic in the West, East Sea in the east. This description is used after Aldland sank and (see East and North sea) still used by us but in the mean time North, South, East, West are rotated. I find that hard to grasp. If the height of the sun rise and the rotation of the axis should be related with the same event of Aldland sinking, why not mentionning the rotation of the poles even straight forward as the sunrise? Because that is my first inclination: the sun rose higher because of the change in degrees. Not a specialist though.
Edit: my knowledge is far to limited to pretend i can say anything definite about the question if a change in sunrise height is connected with the geographic(or magnetic north position). What i did read so far is that the height of sunrise is more influenced by the relative position to the equator. And the equator itself is primarily influenced by the distribution of the landmass. As i understood this could be unrelated to the position of the geographic (and take magnetic) north, which makes our orientation. So i think my assumption that sunrise height and orientation must be connected is not correct. Of course there could be events which could have influenced both at the same time. But otherwise round, it seems plausible that one event caused mainly the change of landmass and another event mainly the orientation. So far, this non-conclusion
