Dots!

close
more_vert

Evergreen Dazed wrote:
So, with this 'inner' ring of dots, incorporating the ring stone in the east and a fallen stone in the west, did Stukeley see and record the remnants of an inner circle? It seems bonkers me even suggesting it, surely this would have been noticed before!?
Well Colt Hoare does not record it in the plan below, it is intriguing isn't it.
But ideas to be discounted, could the smaller dots have been a drawing aid (done by the illustrator) for the circular nature of the henge? the dots are much smaller, and Stukeley does record in the larger dots the excavated pits of removed stones, no excavated pits in the smaller dots. Perhaps Stukeley was just 'fleshing out' an idea that there maybe have been a double ring, he was imaginative after all..

moss wrote:
Evergreen Dazed wrote:
So, with this 'inner' ring of dots, incorporating the ring stone in the east and a fallen stone in the west, did Stukeley see and record the remnants of an inner circle? It seems bonkers me even suggesting it, surely this would have been noticed before!?
Well Colt Hoare does not record it in the plan below, it is intriguing isn't it.
But ideas to be discounted, could the smaller dots have been a drawing aid (done by the illustrator) for the circular nature of the henge? the dots are much smaller, and Stukeley does record in the larger dots the excavated pits of removed stones, no excavated pits in the smaller dots. Perhaps Stukeley was just 'fleshing out' an idea that there maybe have been a double ring, he was imaginative after all..
I have wondered if they were 'plotting' points for his drawing but two things make me question it, one that they would seem to be totally unnecessary and two, that they happen to be on the same 'line' as the ring stone and a fallen stone.
Perhaps he did record it putatively, especially if that fallen stone is actually a fallen stone! Looks the same as others recorded in the outer ring.