Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

I've never been comfortable with the "swinging a rock at a larger rock to dress it" method. Has this been tested by anyone to any degree of success? It just looks a bit random and cumbersome to me. Although it's entirely possible it IS the best method!

Any ideas?

G x

Hey Goff,

I know what you mean - dare I say it looks a bit hit and miss? :) Or more precisely "hit and mess it up past the point of being redeemable"? IIRC Mike Pitts did something like this in his Stonehenge thing.

Personally, I think anyone that came with getting the stones to where they are (and feel free to insert *whatever transport mechanism floats your bluestone* here) would NOT require such an approach as A-frames. To my mind - or what passes for it these days - it seems too involved/over-engineered.

Peace

Pilgrim

X

The 'P' word, I would recommend buying Christopher Alexander's (architect) four books on the Order of Nature - pricey at £40 quid a time, for those who don't understand this lovely vague concept of phenomenology. I had to fork out for them for my sons computer course, so of course read them from cover to cover ;).

But Richard Bradley is good as well, (Tiompan scepticism here) " The Significance of Monuments"... and that was what immediately struck me watching SofS, Bradley's particular theory of 'dead houses' being left to rot amongst the 'living' houses in Denmark.

Now either you can take on board the concept of this, With the proposed theory of a 'death' zone and a 'living' zone at Stonehenge, or you can believe Darvill and Wainwright that Stonehenge is a place for healing.
Either way what really counts at the MPP excavation was all the stuff painstakingly uncovered in the hot sun by the students, etc, and the report that will come out several years hence as to the dating of the pottery, bones etc. It might come with a theory attached but at least it will have some backup.......

Moss, I liked the above post a lot and especially the phrase "for those who don't understand this lovely vague concept of phenomenology" - I keep seeing the word phenomenon everywhere now, certainly in the current book I'm reading. I'll be honest, I don't get it but no doubt the penny will drop once the term starts to sound more familiar.

Meanwhile, I wouldn't mind watching the TT programme again in light of the comments made here; I'm sure that something which took some much time and effort to make will be repeated at some stage.

It's not entirely P but can I reccomend Lakoff and Johnson's "Philosophy in the flesh " or "Metatphors we live by " to get an appreciation how much our bodies are involved in reasoning and cognition and not just out barin . This of course has nothing to do with white , middle aged ,middle class , educated blokes with beards and a liking for booze looking at prehistoric monuments and imagining what it was like for the punters who built them .

Howdy, young fella! How you doing?

Yeah - the "hit and miss" thing is pretty much what I'm aiming at here. Is that a pun - if so - none intended! ;)

I have seen someone swinging a rock at a bigger rock on telly previously, but remember thinking then that, surely you'd want something less random - and indeed more powerful - than a rock being swung from an A-frame.

Maybe even a rock in some sort of sling would have more power and precision. One that you can just swing over your shoulder and crack bits off the bigger rock. Sort of like a hammer but with rope instead of a handle.

You can tell I've looked into this, with all my expert terminology and research! ;) Arf!

G x