Stonehenge forum 180 room
Image by pebblesfromheaven
Stonehenge

Stone shifting 4

close
more_vert
Steve Gray S
Steve Gray Sep 9, 2003 10:16:25
Replying to nigelswift

We could also just use a heavier anchor stone. I'm pretty sure a 20 tonner wouldn't budge, but the lintel is 10 tons, it will be on site and we don't need to erect it until the uprights are in place. The stakes are just adding braces to the belt. The stakes might work by themselves if they were deep enough (3 feet or so?), but the anchor stone just makes sure that the rope can't pull them up.

It was a very tongue-in-cheek suggestion that it might explain some of the holes. Although it could be argued that any apparent astronomical alignment of the Aubrey holes may just be coincidentally related to the astronomical alignments of the outer sarsens. There are the Y and Z holes too. Could these have been for the erection of the trilithons?

N nigelswift
nigelswift Sep 9, 2003 10:40:12
Replying to Steve Gray

It's all very thin ice. The Y and Z holes may be younger as measured by analysis of their contents, but the holes themselves are less certain I suppose, except one set of them, I forget which, is definitely younger because of what they cut into.
The thing is, the existence of a hole doesn't preclude the idea that it replaced an earlier smaller hole. All we know is that you can draw a straight line from the centre, through any sarsen and then through it's equivalent x,y and (approximately) Aubrey stone. Why? A construction-related origin seems possible or even another origin but utilized in construction.
Nice though it would be to win that particular argument would it be safer to keep clear of it, and have a "surface" anchor, if you can do it?