=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

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 14, 2003, 11:48
Having said all that, I think this may be a bit of useful guiding evidence:

EH’s dating study of the monument:
Probability distributions: Trilithons, 2440-2100 cal BC and Bluestone horseshoe 2270-1930
http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/stoneh/3.gif

They clearly state, about the Blue Stones:
” The only stratigraphic relationship between these settings and other dated parts of the Monument are that they must be contemporary or later than the Sarsen Trilithons”

If the first possibility, that the two were contemporary, is interpreted as the bluestones, and the blestone horshoe stohnes in particular, being just a year or two earlier than the Trilithons then they’d have been in the way, there’d be no room for a ramp or tower and the Trilithons couldn’t have been inserted from the inside. So if we did it “from the inside” i.e. with the slope nearest and the vertical face furthest, it would be open for someone to say that we MIGHT be wrong.

But conversely, if we did it “from the outside” with the vertical face nearest, and the sloping face furthest there’d be zero scope to say such a thing since the bluestone dating would be irrelevant.

That doesn’t prove we’d be right to insert vertically/near vertically from the outside, but it does allow us to say that this method, rather than the other one, doesn’t carry that particular possible risk of being wrong. So we’d be able to present a cogent reason for our choice, at least.

Having settled on that method, we’d still have to consider whether we should aim for vertical or near vertical. If the latter, which involved final hauling up, we’d need to be sure that our ropes wouldn’t have been impeded by a bluestone, in case someone suggested one could possibly have been there at the time. From the plan that I’ve seen, 5 trilithons would have been so impeded and 5 (including our two) wouldn’t. To me, that’s suggestive of the bluestones having been put in later, or definitely not a minute earlier – maybe our project will contribute to the dating sequence, as well as everything else. Nevertheless, it would be good if our rope was high at the relevant point, which I think it is on the current system.

One more issue: having settled on outside insertion, we then have to contend with possible criticism that that was wrong because our approach with the stone would have been impeded by the (outer) bluestone CIRCLE. The chances of that being in place at the time are considered slightly greater than for the bluestone horseshoe, as it’s probability distribution is 2280-2030 cal BC. Clearly, we’ve got to get in somewhere, so we’d have to say that probably none of the bluestones were there at the time, and the general opinion and evidence supports us. But the counter argument COULD be put up that the bluestone circles were there first (blocking the outside approach) and that the true situation was that the stones were therefore put in from the inside, and the bluestone horseshoe was added shortly after.

Sorry to sound so nitpicking and neurotic but it’s as well if we have some sort of detailed explanation in our pockets for what we decide to do.

And none of this is against the idea of demonstrating 2 different methods from 2 different directions, in fact it probably gives it more sense. It would be a complete show-stopping hoot!
In reply to:
Re: Hole profiles (GordonP)
Topic Outline:
The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index