Roof on Stonehenge

Stonehenge 180

Image by jimit

CGHW1 Dec 30, 2007 09:25:42

Various bronze age and neolithic sites which have solar alignments also have chambers which are only illuminated at sunrise or sunset (e.g. Newgrange, La Hougue Bie and Lascaux and other caves in the region around Lascaux). If the illumination of a dark chamber at sunrise or sunset is an important part of the ritual carried out at these places, then it could imply that religious ceremonies at other places (e.g. stone circles or henges) also required similar conditions. A dark chamber could have been created at stone circles by erecting a temporary wigwam structure, but since there would be no evidence of any such structures, there is little point in further discussion. However, this line of thinking also implies that henges would normally have been roofed. A roof has been proposed for Woodhenge, but information regarding a roof on Stonehenge seems
to be a little more difficult to come by.
There is a report by A. Van de Pradenne in "Antiquity" in 1937 depicting Stonehenge with a roof on. I can send this article to anyone who is interested. However, when a roof is mentioned in relation to Stonehenge in the literature it is usually of the form "clearly Stonehenge was not designed to carry a roof". I'm not sure I would agree. It would seem that there have been discussions regarding a roof in this forum as one posting states "this brings us back to the question of a roof". I have not been able to find the original discussion. Certain features of Stonehenge are suggestive of a roof, e.g. the lintels and the "over engineering" involved in creating the mortice and tenon joints. Certain other aspects are suggestive too.

I'm sure all this must have been discussed/printed? elsewhere, but I cannot find very much apart from a totally OTT reconstruction suggested by Bruce Bedlam (see www.stonehenge.tv/roof.html)

Is anyone aware of other sources of information or where this topic has been discussed in books/articles or on the internet?

Thanks

Chris W

tjj Dec 30, 2007 09:48:03

Replying to CGHW1

Coincidentally I was having a conversation only yesterday with a friend who showed me a book about ancient astronomical observatories in India - the circular design of one in particular bore a remarkable resemblance to Stonehenge being a circle within a circle and having a similar structure. It may be a red herring but if you google ancient astronomical observatories in India you may find some interesting reading.

Littlestone Dec 30, 2007 20:38:46

Replying to CGHW1

Is anyone aware of other sources of information or where this topic has been discussed in books/articles or on the internet?

Hi Chris. This has been discussed on TMA at least once before - about two years ago I think. I'll scroll back and try and find the link. Was recently talking to other TMAs about an index to Forum topics and I seem to remember someone saying there was one via Head to Head (might have got that completely wrong however but someone here might be able to point you in the right direction).

CGHW1 Jan 5, 2008 17:29:12

Replying to CGHW1

When I started this thread, I was expecting that people would tell me that all the things I was saying had been said a hundred times before in different guises. It seems to me now that this is not so. In addition, when one thinks of a new idea, it is important not to cling to every clue that appears to confirm your hypothesis and ignore those that do not fit. I have tried to keep to the known archeaological results, but as I am a rank amateur when it comes to archeaology, please let me know if I make an error of some kind.

In my last posting I briefly mentioned the Z holes. These holes were discovered in the 1920s during the excavations of Col. Hawley. They are dated to about 1700BC for the Z holes (carbon dating on antler picks if I remember correctly) and the Y holes somewhat later. There is one Z and one Y hole for each stone in the outer sarsen circle, with the Z holes just outside the outer sarsen circle and the Y holes furhter out still. The form of the pattern of holes is a slightly spiral shape, with the start and end of the spiral being either side of stone 8. This variable distance from the centre of the circle has been explained as being due to the sarsen stones (which were already in position) blocking the line of sight to the centre of Stonehemge and so they were unable to dig the holes in a regular circle. The usual explanation for these holes is they were dug to contain some small stones (possibly bluestones), but the stones were never placed in position. The holes are steep sided and the earth around the holes would have been disturbed if there had been stones placed in the earth.

I find the explanation for these holes a little strange. One could have simply placed a stone or similar object in the location where one intended to dig each hole before commencing the digging of any holes. This would have clearly shown that either side of stone 8 there was a clear difference in the distance of the holes from the centre of Stonehenge. The builders of stonehenge didn't even bother with this simple exercise. It would seem that these holes were dug in something of a hurry and had no religious significance. I have also previously suggested that the roof on stonehenge would have caused considerable stresses on the structure. The forces would cause the outer sarsens to lean outwards away from the centre of Stonehenge. In addition, rain wuld cause the ground to be wet outside the henge, but not inside which would soften the ground. In addition, freeze/thaw cycles would also preferentially soften the ground outside the henge. Eventually, the lean on the stones would have been quite noticable and those in charge of Stonehenge may have tried to prevent further leaning.

The most obvious thing to have done would have been to build some buttresses. Could this have been the purpose of the Y and Z holes? I cannot be certain. One thing against this suggestion is that in the previous posting, I suggested that stone 8 may have fallen before Z hole 8 had been dug. However, there is a Y hole 8, and apparently the Y holes were dug after the Z holes. So if stone 8 had fallen, why make a buttress for it? Also, the buttresses could have disturbed the earth around the holes, which is not consistent with the excavations.

Despite these last two problems I thought I would mention the idea to see if I get any positive/negative comments on this aspect. The idea of the Y and Z holes as showing evidence for buttressing is also espoused by Bruce Bedlam, but his buttresses are an integral part of the structure, not an afterthought to prevent stones from falling over...

Regards
Chris W

BuckyE Feb 1, 2008 15:25:31

Replying to CGHW1

CGHW1 wrote:

...Certain features of Stonehenge are suggestive of a roof, e.g. the lintels and the "over engineering" involved in creating the mortice and tenon joints....
Thanks
Chris W

A couple of points...

1. John North suggests the lintels created artificial horizons over and between which stars, moon and sun were ritually observed rising and setting, the observation points being from ditch-henge and avenue. Who knows?

2. I have, without having seen anyone else's suggestion, also pointed out that the "mortice and tenons" are not. Can't possibly remember what thread that was in. So yes, they don't provide the anti-twisting functions of true m&t's. But what they, and the tongue and groove joints DO provide is the classic just-good-enough-therefore-very-efficient function of "stopping the starting."

No idea what a real engineer would call this. But I know from experience that it's often not necessary to prop, rope or otherwise constrain a load against the worse case slippage or tilt. Most of the time, you merely need to constrain it against the beginning of the movement, the smaller average jostle. This will be enough to prevent sympathetic vibrations (swings, slippage, etc.) from building up and reaching a catastrophic tipping point.

In the case of the lintels, you obviously need to keep them centered over the uprights. What happens, though, is that without joinery, a little bit of creep --just from, say, frost heave-- begins to create a little bit of lean. Which then allows a bit more creep. Which creates a bit more lean, and eventually the two movements exacerbate each other to catastrophe.

The original Stonehengineers weren't trying to create joints which would resist a sudden strong force, such as a big lorry smashing into an upright. For that, yes, you'd need a true, all-the-way-through m&t. They were, quite rightly, using the simplest kind of joints that would resist the small movements they expected would otherwise occur.

3. Yes, many menhirs continue to stand. As do many dolmens. But how many, compared to how many were erected? Plenty of both have collapsed. I doubt we have any good idea of the ratio or proportion of collapse to endurance. And few if any other ancient structures are the Stonehenge free standing upright and lintel type, in which a pretty good portion of the structure's weight is on top, potentially sliding slowly off a single center. Menhirs have no tops. Dolmens have triangular or quadrilateral polygonal base points, not double, linear base points.

Just a few thoughts on simple explanations for a seemingly complex phenomenon!

Michael Bott Feb 4, 2008 20:42:22

Replying to CGHW1

During the making of Standing with Stones, filming at so many sites in a relatively short period of time, what overwhelmed Rupert and I in the end was the sense of: "what's missing?" It seems to us that visiting stone circles we have been duped into seeing just stones circles and interpreting them merely as stone circles. Roofed or not, I cannot believe that these were spaces of stone alone. If we could see the timber posts, buildings, wattle fences, avenues, crowd control barriers, huts, animal shelters etc., etc., that could well have been equally essential features of these sites, we should have much less trouble interpreting their purpose.

Was the closed ring of the Rollright Stones (or indeed Moel-ty-Uchaf) footing for the timbers of a large enclosed space?

Another idea I love to play with (I couldn't squeeze it into the sequence in the film, though) is the thought that the Recumbent Stone Circles may have been enclosed, the space above the 'altar' stone left clear to observe the passage of the moon? A Neolithic Imax?

Whatever.

Michael.

Littlestone Apr 12, 2008 15:08:44

Replying to CGHW1

A little more about a possible roof here - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/court_and_social/article3723547.ece

brucebedlam Apr 13, 2008 23:54:09

Replying to CGHW1

If Stonehenge had been square or rectangular YES of course it could have been a building - but round? Most people belief it was a free standing structure with everyone standing in the rain. Could it support a roof? The Sarsen Circle is 100ft diameter. Could the Y Z holes have been holes for stone footings?

If anyone had come to me with such a radical idea I would have dismissed it immediately. Then there is the thinking man – would a scientist dismiss something prior to investigation?

I am a puzzle expert, a member of Mensa. I looked at Stonehenge as a puzzle. I asked the questions – Why are the stones so big? Why that particular diameter? Could the stone circle support a roof? Where they capable of making a wooden structure?

Then there is the question – where these people stupid boring and glum? If they could move those huge stones all that way and stand them up. They where capable of great things and a wooden roof is very possible and I am sure they would have at least considered it.

Consider a wooden roof. Each lintel has been dressed to 90% on the upper inside edge, exactly where the roof beams could have fitted. Then there are the Y Z holes for the stone footings, exactly in the right position. Years ago they made their buildings round. Buildings over 60ft diameter had buttress around the outside. Take their construction ideas and apply them to Stonehenge.

Have a look at the Stonehenge Animation I made with Bournemouth University. www.stonehenge.tv There is also a short Stonehenge documentary - Meridian Report. Question and evaluate – make up your own mind - what do you think?