Julian Cope presents Head Heritage | The Modern Antiquarian Forum

Steve Gray

931 posts

Re: Ramps??

Sep 18, 2003, 09:56

I think we need to differentiate between evidence and opinion. What have we got at the moment?

1. One reference on Gowland's plan that shows a speckled area with the caption "Probable stoneholes and ramp". (Opinion)

2. Two references from carbon-dating sources, both to hole 56, that refer to construction ramps. In the first reference "the ramp fill" is in quotaion marks (Opinion).

I think the RC people were dating antler fragments and merely used the term "ramp fill" as being the most readily understood description (i.e. fitting with accepted opinion) of where the fragments were found.

It's my guess that Gowland and those that followed have noted the shallow slope on one side of the holes and taken this as evidence of an erection ramp. Because everyone has assumed that ramps were used and no other (known) theory for stone erection would otherwise explain them, this has become the accepted view (Opinion).

If our method is viable and if it also requires a shallow slope on one side of the hole, then it also concurs with the evidence. The chalk fill could just as easily be "hole fill" as "ramp fill".

So as I said before we need to know whether there is some real evidence that negates our method rather than what the current expert opinion is.

In reply to:
Re: Ramps?? (GordonP)

Replies:
Re: Ramps?? (nigelswift)

The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge » Stone shifting 5	Log In to post a reply

143 messages	Topic View: Flat \| Threaded