The Modern Antiquarian. Ancient Sites, Stone Circles, Neolithic Monuments, Ancient Monuments, Prehistoric Sites, Megalithic Mysteries
Home Latest Posts Forums Maps Help
Browse Sites News Blog Contributors The Books
Head To Head   The Modern Antiquarian   Stonehenge Forum Start a topic | Search
Stonehenge
Re: Hole profiles
149 messages
Select a forum:
Me too please, nigelswift@aol.com

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".


Reply | with quote
nigelswift
Posted by nigelswift
12th September 2003ce
08:15

In reply to:

Re: Hole profiles (baza)

Messages in this topic:

Terms & Conditions  |  Home  |  Julian Cope presents Head Heritage Top of page