Stonehenge 181
Image by texlahoma
Stonehenge

Stone shifting 5

Steve Gray S
Steve Gray Sep 18, 2003 09:56:37
Replying to GordonP

I think we need to differentiate between evidence and opinion. What have we got at the moment?

1. One reference on Gowland's plan that shows a speckled area with the caption "Probable stoneholes and ramp". (Opinion)

2. Two references from carbon-dating sources, both to hole 56, that refer to construction ramps. In the first reference "the ramp fill" is in quotaion marks (Opinion).

I think the RC people were dating antler fragments and merely used the term "ramp fill" as being the most readily understood description (i.e. fitting with accepted opinion) of where the fragments were found.

It's my guess that Gowland and those that followed have noted the shallow slope on one side of the holes and taken this as evidence of an erection ramp. Because everyone has assumed that ramps were used and no other (known) theory for stone erection would otherwise explain them, this has become the accepted view (Opinion).

If our method is viable and if it also requires a shallow slope on one side of the hole, then it also concurs with the evidence. The chalk fill could just as easily be "hole fill" as "ramp fill".

So as I said before we need to know whether there is some real evidence that negates our method rather than what the current expert opinion is.

N nigelswift
nigelswift Sep 18, 2003 10:16:58
Replying to Steve Gray

I think that's very cogent. All we know is that the investigating archaeologist 100 years ago and the EH team more recently used the word ramp.

However, we can say or assume they were wrong but we don’t know for sure if they had any other evidence or what the establishment thinks about the issue.

Just one archaeologist saying we might be right would be a comfort. I’ve found one – the BBC’s archaeologist preferred the crib method but his view didn’t prevail, it seems. Just how careful the BBC were about being consistent with the evidence is debatable however, since in his radio programme he said the trilithons must have pre-dated the circle which is against the evidence, as you know. I think having their name and having archaeologists on board gave them a degree of freedom and authority to take a line that we lack unfortunately.

I suppose in the end this resolves into a matter of tactics and calculated risk so I’ll leave it for you to decide.

© 2026 Head Heritage.

Unless otherwise stated, the copyright in each work is the property of the respective contributor. For usage or questions, contact [email protected].