|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian Stonehenge Forum | Start a topic | Search |
61 messages | Select a forum: |
nigelswift wrote: I doubt the structure of the chalk blocks at the top of the mound would take the weight. I think that's true. Plus, there is no evidence of holes. But its a fantasy I'm very reluctant to abandon as Stonehenge is currently ill-placed and out of scale, lost in the landscape, and Silbury is currently a very unsatisfying ungainly lump, screaming to be complete. Yet both would achieve aesthetic perfection if unified... Silbury incomplete ? Hmmm, an interesting concept, faced with the sheer size of it, that you'd get all the way to the beginning of the hard bit and give up. Or maybe it was a union issue ? "Drag them things up there? You got to be jokin' mate - we're on time-an-'alf as it is, we'd want at least another bluestone chip each before we start, and then there's yer oxen - don't climb up 'ills that well, them oxen. Okay on a slope, but up that thing ? Now if you'd said all this at the beginning, we wouldn't have used chalk for a start, and we'd 'ave have made it 'alf as 'igh and twice as wide..." Reply | with quote |  3rd January 2007ce 23:04 In reply to: Re: Stonehenge-on-Silbury (nigelswift) |
Messages in this topic: |
|