Julian Cope presents Head Heritage | The Modern Antiquarian Forum

nigelswift

8112 posts

Re: Hole profiles

Sep 12, 2003, 08:15

Me too please, [email protected]

BTW Steve, you may/may not have come across this:

"What Aubrey probably didn't know, was that someone had already dug the soil away from in front of 55, and when the Stonehenger's originally erected this stone they had chocked beneath its front edge with a large Sarsen chocking-stone to hold it up. They did this because of 55's short length, and whoever dug many years later had completely removed the soil from around this chock, but had, lucky for them, abandoned this digging just short of it.”

“When 56 fell forwards it occupied the hole that felled it and so destroyed the Archaeological evidence. Also, when 56 came against the top of bluestone 68 in front, the base of this little stone was pushed backwards into the bottom of this hole as well, leaving very little of any void to be found.
Finally, because Mr Gowland found only very few Bluestone and Sarsen Chipping's in the area that fronted stone 56, this suggests the whole area had been removed and lowered by digging.”

This comes from a very "imaginative" website, so can't be used as the basis of anything but it does seem to suggest that the original profile may have been partly destroyed and that big chocking stones, should we need them, are "allowable".

In reply to:
Re: Hole profiles (baza)

The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge » Stone shifting 4	Log In to post a reply

149 messages	Topic View: Flat \| Threaded