|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian Stonehenge Forum | Start a topic | Search |
143 messages | Select a forum: |
| I have just replied to Nigel by email on this one and here is what I sent (similar to Gordon's points). Sorry, Nigel, I was a bit slow in getting back on this one. I used to run a farm and have put in quite a few big wooden gateposts. Height is important since the posts are normally supplied with a finished top, and in any case trimming a 12” square 8’ oak post is no easy task, nor is lifting it back out of the hole. Generally the technique is to get the depth of the hole right to start with, but if it’s wrong you put fine gravel down whichever of the holes is too deep and rock the post so that the gravel works its way underneath. The post gradually rises until it’s at the level you want. For the trilithons I think it’s most likely, however, that the holes were dug to match the stones. There’s also a slight possibility that the tops were not prepared until after the stones were erected. How do we know that references to ramps are there only because the authors have already made the assumption that ramps were used to erect the stones? It’s unlikely that there was any evidence of ramps above ground level and a ramp below ground level could equally be a slope to allow clearance for the stone to pivot into the ground. Your turning around of the idea to suit our purposes is nicely done, but I am not inclined to change our ideas so drastically on the strength of such slight evidence. Reply | with quote |  17th September 2003ce 23:21 In reply to: Re: All up in the air again... (GordonP) |
Messages in this topic: |
|