>> Anyone know if the depths of the postholes at say Woodhenge were all the same depth?
>> I was wondering whether or not the posts would have been the same height above ground?
The representations show different heights. I assume they have some evidence for this, but don't know what it is.
>> Mike Pitts gives the impression that archaeologists are working on 3/4 above ground 1/4 below. So a >> four foot hole gives a 12m high post.
The maths doesn't quite work there - 4 foot holes = 12 <i>foot</i> high posts
>> Is there any reason why the rings couldn't be different heights?
Can't think of one
>> SECOND QUERY
>> Any reason why like Seahenge the posts couldn't have infact been upside down trees? Say with the
>> bark stripped and "higher" branches, the ninserted upside down to create a canopy covering of root
>> balls?
Again no reason at all and it's one I've certainly considered for the central post. I presume ground compaction at the base of the hole would say something. Root balls are quite heavy, so it would mean a shorter post for the same ground compaction.
>> VAGUE IDEA
>> The central space. Anyone ever seen an old oak tree? It dies and rots away on the inside, but
>> remains alive. Imagine if you had to travel inland. You might keep close to the river as a landmark,
>> it's direction of flow can help you navigate. You keep an eye out for any defendable space to protect
>> you from bears, wolves, etc.
>> If you get stuck in the forest you can camp inside an old oak tree with your fire outside the
>> hole/entrance/
>> On a return journey you might widen the clearing around the tree, creating a clear and open central
>> space in the forest.
>> Sound likely? Stone circles are usually close to water, I like the idea of controlling a space within an
>> uncontrollable area.
Personally I'd rather keep pigs in them!
>> Your thoughts please.
You just read them :-)