Julian Cope presents Head Heritage | The Modern Antiquarian Forum

nigelswift

8112 posts

Last Try

Sep 03, 2003, 19:10

Right, well I’m not quite giving up yet, because no-one has actually addressed what I’m saying. Steve suggested it’s a question of undesirable dumbing down, but that’s certainly not what I meant. Jim says he has some reservations, and I’m encouraged by that as he has a good eye for this sort of thing and knows a lot about Stonehenge.

What worries me is this: in my opinion the method proposed is probably not the one they used. It’s tailored to show there could have been small numbers of participants, whereas there’s no evidence for that. The reverse, probably. The “small numbers” parameter seems to have come by way of default from the stone rowing issue, where it’s triumphantly vindicated, but what has that to do with stone erection? So I’m sure the establishment will say our approach is based on and tailored to a false hypothesis, and that we’ve gone to considerable trouble to design a system to demonstrate something that didn’t happen. (This is the same establishment to whom a prudent would-be sponsor will turn for advice).

If we think in terms of larger numbers we can all think of other ways the erection could have been done, probably quicker and safer. Maybe less sexy but in my opinion more likely. Most of them centre round “dump it in a hole and wedge and haul it up”, with variations. Following on from rowing the stones into place, I think that would be a pretty impressive enterprise and we don’t need to end with an academically controversial flourish. Let's do absolutely nothing to besmirch the good name of stone rowing, it's too perfect to be put at risk.

In reply to:
Stone Shifting 3 (nigelswift)

Replies:
My problem (well the one I'll admit to) (FourWinds)
Re: Last Try (baza)
Re: Last Try (Steve Gray)

The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge » Stone Shifting 3	Log In to post a reply

144 messages	Topic View: Flat \| Threaded