Stonehenge forum 180 room
Image by GLADMAN
close
more_vert

nigelswift wrote:
having the circle broken would weaken the rest of the arc.

Yes, although describing it as a ring beam was probably a misdescription as it actually probably only lends local support, not all-round support like a single solid beam would. My guess is that the primary intention was aesthetic more than engineering - why else make the lintels curved? No engineering advantage in that.

There would be as much work involved getting the angles right on a 30-sided polygon as curving each stone to a set pattern, though quite how the curve could be translated from a 30th of a circle with primitive measuring techniques and sloping ground is beyond my 20th-Century brain...but certainly the overall effect would be more impressive with a curved arc than multi-sided.

And I wonder how much was done as the building progressed - start off with a plan and amend it as they went - like adding lightswitches and a different bathroom suite ?

There would be as much work involved getting the angles right on a 30-sided polygon as curving each stone to a set pattern, though quite how the curve could be translated from a 30th of a circle with primitive measuring techniques and sloping ground is beyond my 20th-Century brain...but certainly the overall effect would be more impressive with a curved arc than multi-sided.
Yes, that's pretty amazing when you think about it. I suppose it's not definitive but that sort of attention to detail (curved lintels) might suggest that Stonehenge was conceived and constructed where it now stands - not brought from elsewhere. Not sure if there's a great deal of logic in that observation however - I can still see it once sitting on top of Silbury quite nicely :-)