FourWinds
|
Re: Number 3
Sep 05, 2003, 07:08
|
|
Your last paragraph is spot on (as is the rest, I think, but the last one = very importatnt point).
|
GordonP
|
Re: Mission Statement
Sep 05, 2003, 07:27
|
Just for the record, I'm not anti archaeologists, I have great respect for the work these guys do, and I don't really blame them for ignoring what must appear to them a crazy notion. However when I found it totally impossible to find just one who would even entertain, what I consider a simple and valid concept, well you can imagine my frustration.
The mission statement reflects what I have been thinking, let us show what is possible, let the archaeologist decide what is likely.
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: Number 3
Sep 05, 2003, 10:40
|
Good God, Nigel, are you an insomniac? What kind of time is that to be posting messages? Actually, I sometimes wake up in the middle of the night and just have to put down my ideas on the computer (it used to be on paper).
"I’d love to solve the “shape of the hole” issue first"
Yes, like FW, I think this is THE major issue. If we know what shape the holes were, then we would know whether Gordon's method fits. If it doesn't, we should probably keep quiet about dropping stones into holes and concentrate on stone-rowing. So how do we get more information about them, short of a clandestine visit to Salisbury in the middle of the night with a big spade? >:-o
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: Number 3
Sep 05, 2003, 10:51
|
"But come on now, you can not seriously believe that Stonehenge is a one family thing. Stonehenge is so much more than just a circle of big stones ... its a landscape in its own right."
No I don't, which is to some extent why I mentioned Silbury. I was trying to make the point that Gordon's method should not be denigrated just because it uses small numbers. A small workforce is an advantage whatever the project. The population of Britain was pretty small at that time (sorry I don't have any numbers) and they built a huge number of megalithic structures. Manpower estimates based on hauling imply a huge expenditure of effort per head of population. Any theory that would point to a reduction of these estimates ought to be taken seriously.
|
baza
|
Re: Stone Shifting 3
Sep 05, 2003, 13:29
|
In Stone Shifting 2, Gordon said:
“We must find out the profile of the holes for the Trilithon, whatever the holes say is OK by me.”
I`ve looked around and have yet to come across a profile of one of the holes, so I`ve asked on the Britarch list if anyone can point me to the relevant publication.
Still waiting.....
baz
|
baza
|
The hole
Sep 05, 2003, 14:19
|
Well, I`ve had one response, so far:
>Try "Stonehenge in its Landscape", English Heritage, 1995, (starting around
page 250)
However, I`ve tried a Google search, English Heritage`s list of publications and Abebooks and not found that one anywhere.
baz
|
ocifant
|
Re: The hole
Sep 05, 2003, 14:34
|
|
If it helps, the ISBN appears to be 1850746052
|
ocifant
|
Re: The hole
Sep 05, 2003, 14:35
|
Oh, and Amazon have it, but it's not cheap...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1850746052/qid%3D1062768209/202-9503365-2951842
|
baza
|
Re: The hole
Sep 05, 2003, 14:51
|
Thanks for that, ocifant.
£70, plus "this hard-to-find title is subject to an additional handling charge of £1.99 "
"usually dispatched within 4 to 6 weeks."
Hmmmm....
What we really could do with is the original report of the excavation. I don`t know which of the many excavations which have taken place at Stonehenge actually investigated one of the stone holes, though.
baz
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: The hole
Sep 05, 2003, 15:00
|
|
Amazon list it as a "hard to find book" with a despatch time of 4 to 6 weeks. Apart from the price, I don't want to wait that long. Surely someone on TMA knows someone with a copy. How about we all phone our local libraries to see if anyone can locate it?
|
