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

149 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
nigelswift
8112 posts

Re: Hole profiles
Sep 13, 2003, 21:44
Steve, as I see it, the Trilithon stones 56, 54, 53 and 60 had holes with outer faces Vertical, Vertical, Unknown and Unknown.
And they had inner faces sloping about 65/70 deg., 50/65 deg., 50 deg. And 45 deg.

Previous excavations have mashed up the evidence, especially Stone 55, the pair to ours.
Gowland shows a “possible ramp” at one point but I can’t make it out.
The hole for Stone 50 has an intriguing feature in the bottom, reminiscent of a post hole (!) (or maybe just an irritating boulder they removed).

Dropping the stone in vertically from the outside would be consistent with this (limited) evidence, as you say.
But the same evidence might also support sliding it or dropping it at less than vertical from the inside… The evidence would look the same.

My inclination would be to regard this as generally good news in that we can put the stone in the hole however we wish and only have to ensure we have one vertical (or other) side and one sloping side for it to be consistent with the available evidence.

One more thing I noticed: the only Sarsen Circle stone that features in the diagrams is Stone 27 – inner slope very shallow, outer slope 65 deg. If that says anything it’s non-vertical insertion, from the outside. Yet the evidence from the Trilithon horseshoe, that points two ways, says that if it’s non-vertical insertion it would have been from the inside and if it’s vertical insertion it’s from the outside. If Stone 27 is typical, it seems that compared to the Sarsen Circle the Trilithons were erected EITHER from the opposite side OR by the different method. But definitely not the same way.That’s more good news as there’s even less archaeological evidence to throw at us.
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index