| Review your Reply |
hamish
Joined:
20-06-2001
Messages: 156
from Bristol
 OFF-Line
|  New Message Posted!2007-03-04 10:53
There is some more interesting information on http://www.eternalidol.com mentioning the use of the stones as a bridge. On one of my pictures is an elderly lady and dog, I was talking to her and she told me about them being part of a bridge. So it is part of the living memory of the village.
|
coldrum
Joined:
17-09-2002
Messages: 777
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2007-03-03 20:40
http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/salisbury/salisburynews/display.var.1230160.0.stonehenge_secrets_may_lie_by_side_of_the_road.php
|
Chyknel
Joined:
11-11-2006
Messages: 475
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2007-03-03 10:30
"what the odds are for the two sections of stone still being together after all their adventures."
Reasonably high possibly. We have a (possible) account of them being taken as one (or maybe two) to make a bridge and then they stayed together until 200 years ago and now they turn up together not far from where the bridge was.
These grooves: could the bridge have just comprised the two stones, laid side by side at the width of a carriage or cart, and could the grooves be due to iron wheels? Once the grooves started to wear they'd wear in quite a narrow fashion as the wheels would be naturally forced into them. And if the bridge consisted only of the two stones the carters would be very careful yo keep exactly to the grooves else they'd end up in the stream. I've seen lots of wheel grooves like that - around mines in Wales and Cornwall for instance.
|
hamish
Joined:
20-06-2001
Messages: 156
from Bristol
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2007-03-03 09:53
Quote:
|
On 2007-03-03 01:24, BERNARDQUATERMASS wrote:
I was just wondering what the odds are for the two sections of stone still being together after all their adventures.
|
|
I suppose the only way is to dig them up and have a look.
|
BERNARDQUATERMASS
Joined:
19-03-2006
Messages: 653
from Oldham, Lancashire
OFF-Line
|  New Message Posted!2007-03-03 01:24
I was just wondering what the odds are for the two sections of stone still being together after all their adventures.
|
hamish
Joined:
20-06-2001
Messages: 156
from Bristol
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2007-02-28 21:25
Quote:
|
On 2007-02-28 20:47, sem wrote:
Hamish, in my experience gate posts are always worth looking at. Over the centuries farmers have cleared fields and formed their boundaries from stones found there. Round and odd shaped stones are great for building walls but something about 4ft tall, straight and thin makes a great post for a gate.
Try any site you have visited and I guarantee you'll find a few.
Good hunting.
Sem
|
|
Thanks Sem, I will definately be going down there again,there is so much hidden but not hidden around us. A pair of new eyes taking a lateral look is what is needed.
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 1704
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2007-02-28 20:47
Hamish, in my experience gate posts are always worth looking at. Over the centuries farmers have cleared fields and formed their boundaries from stones found there. Round and odd shaped stones are great for building walls but something about 4ft tall, straight and thin makes a great post for a gate.
Try any site you have visited and I guarantee you'll find a few.
Good hunting.
Sem
|
hamish
Joined:
20-06-2001
Messages: 156
from Bristol
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2007-02-28 09:14
Quote:
|
On 2007-02-28 00:24, BERNARDQUATERMASS wrote:
Pete G. reckons he's found another stone.
[ This message was edited by: BERNARDQUATERMASS on 2007-02-28 00:28 ]
|
|
I wonder how many are hiding away in villages in the area,I expect bridges on farms are a good place to look.
|
BERNARDQUATERMASS
Joined:
19-03-2006
Messages: 653
from Oldham, Lancashire
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2007-02-28 00:24
Pete G. reckons he's found another stone.
[ This message was edited by: BERNARDQUATERMASS on 2007-02-28 00:28 ]
|
slumpy
Joined:
18-10-2004
Messages: 27
from Kent
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2007-02-26 18:49
Quote:
|
On 2007-02-26 18:00, PeteG wrote:
The woodcut is dated 1749.
|
|
1749? First time I've seen that date anywhere - but the view through the gap between the trilithons would be blocked by 57 and 58, which fell in 1797.
And very much pre-Victorian !
Now my head is spinning again...
[ This message was edited by: slumpy on 2007-02-26 19:04 ]
|
Main News