| Author |
Stonehenge Questions |
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 26-04-2012 at 01:58
______________
This is a corrected edit showing the proper cardinal alignments.
Thanks George & Jon!
[ This message was edited by: Feanor on 2012-06-02 16:58 ]
 Profile
 Email
 Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 26-04-2012 at 02:00
Hi all!
In review today, I notice that since May of 2011 I have made 100 commentary postings here in the Portal’s various threads. For better or worse I also note that I have never started a Thread. In that spirit then I will offer up some queries that I would like to see discussed and/or dissected. Some questions may be merely conjectural, and may never be answered, while some answers may be known, but lay beyond my body of understanding.
Though there’s always little-million questions, I will posit only a couple here as ― knowing you guys ― most of the rest will be dragged out in any case!
Can it be known if the Sarsen Circle Stones were “Mass-Produced” or crafted one at a time?
Obviously all 28 (or 30) cannot have been produced in one ‘sitting’, but does anyone think they may have stacked a few up over there on the north side for their grandchildren to set?
There is evidence suggesting both approaches but I wonder if there has ever been consensus.
Profile
Email
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 816
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 26-04-2012 at 11:33
Hi Neil. I'd forgotten that there were other forums in this site!
Quote:
| Can it be known if the Sarsen Circle Stones were “Mass-Produced” or crafted one at a time?
Obviously all 28 (or 30) cannot have been produced in one ‘sitting’, but does anyone think they may have stacked a few up over there on the north side for their grandchildren to set? |
|
From a construction point of view... it would be simpler to 'mass produce' the items (albeit over a very long period). If you were to mass produce items, it also makes a lot of sense to do that at source rather than as an on-site item, though 'final finishing' might more easily be done as an on-site process.
Transport is likely to have been a more difficult task than the final set to position, so my guess is that it's unlikely that there would be a defined materials stacking zone for sarsens. Why the North side Neil?
On the other hand, if you take the view that a complete circle is unnecessary for the monument to be 'finished' in the minds of the builders (for example if 28 or fewer pillar stones ever existed in the outer sarsen ring), then the most sensible place to store 'spares' would be as part of the circle: This could add to the visual integrity of the monument.
Jon
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2638
OFF-Line
| Posted 26-04-2012 at 13:57
Neil ,possibly a minor point but AH 7 (the one that held the hessian bag of cremated bone ) , like the other Aubrey holes , does not point to a cardinal direction as seen from any of the possible centres .
George
Profile
Reply
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 2412
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 26-04-2012 at 14:53
Can it be known if the Sarsen Circle Stones were “Mass-Produced” or crafted one at a time?
Are we certain of their origin, was it a single source - in which case there may be quarrying evidence that could partly answer your question - or did people bring a sarsens from several different areas, in the same vein as laying the earth from different locations at Silbury Hill?
Rune
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2638
OFF-Line
| Posted 26-04-2012 at 15:16
I don't think there is any provenance for the source of any of the Stonehenge sarsens .
George
Quote:
|
On 2012-04-26 14:53, Runemage wrote:
Can it be known if the Sarsen Circle Stones were “Mass-Produced” or crafted one at a time?
Are we certain of their origin, was it a single source - in which case there may be quarrying evidence that could partly answer your question - or did people bring a sarsens from several different areas, in the same vein as laying the earth from different locations at Silbury Hill?
Rune
|
|
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 816
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 26-04-2012 at 15:38
Quote:
| Neil ,possibly a minor point but AH 7 (the one that held the hessian bag of cremated bone ) , like the other Aubrey holes , does not point to a cardinal direction as seen from any of the possible centres. |
|
Hi George
Do you happen to know exactly how many degrees out from cardinal east AH7 is relative to various proposed centres?
(The centre of the AH group appears to lines through with AH56 & C then B through 97; defining an axis to which AH7 could be referenced at that particular point in time.)
[ This message was edited by: jonm on 2012-04-26 15:38 ]
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2638
OFF-Line
| Posted 26-04-2012 at 16:43
Hi Jon , the three centres are all approx within a metre of each other meaning there will less than a degree of difference in orientation from any of the centres to the centre of AH 7 . Bearing (bad pun )that in mind I reckon the centre of AH 7 to be nearly 4 degrees out from due east with AH 6 closer to the correct orientation . Thom considered all four cardinal points went between the holes intentionally .
George
Quote:
|
On 2012-04-26 15:38, jonm wrote:
Quote:
| Neil ,possibly a minor point but AH 7 (the one that held the hessian bag of cremated bone ) , like the other Aubrey holes , does not point to a cardinal direction as seen from any of the possible centres. |
|
Hi George
Do you happen to know exactly how many degrees out from cardinal east AH7 is relative to various proposed centres?
(The centre of the AH group appears to lines through with AH56 & C then B through 97; defining an axis to which AH7 could be referenced at that particular point in time.)
[ This message was edited by: jonm on 2012-04-26 15:38 ]
|
|
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 816
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 26-04-2012 at 17:18
Quote:
| Bearing (bad pun )that in mind I reckon the centre of AH 7 to be nearly 4 degrees out from due east with AH 6 closer to the correct orientation |
|
As usual, you're right George. AH6 is what I should have been thinking of: The Avenue is slightly rotated anti-clockwise relative to the Heelstone and so it's 6 that is also slightly rotated anti-clockwise relative to cardinal East.
Cheers
Jon
Profile
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 26-04-2012 at 17:52
Hiya Gang!
Yes Jon, there Are other fora here! (lol) They just don't all have to do with "Stonehengativity"!
(Great name, btw!)
George - there are a few errors in the sketch above, it's true. For example, I have the Southern Entrance directly on South, and we know it's really a bit east of south, closer to the South Barrow.
I have 2 Heel Stones, where evidence suggests that there was only 1 at the time of this depiction.
The North Barrow, though correctly shown as double-diked, is actually larger than shown here.
So I'm aware that there are a few glitches and I will correct them.
But the geometry, spatial relationships - and particularly Aubrey Hole placement - are faithfully rendered, using a number of credited sources for their irregularities and positioning.
My understanding is that AH-7 is as close to then-Cardinal East as they could get. One of the cool things about the time-span between the Aubreys and the Stone Circle is that AH-7 is the Only hole that has any semblance of an alignment passing through it. There is something significant going on there, possibly borne-out by all the carving on Stone 4, where the East line whisks past its right side.
Believe me - I have checked this time & again. It's remarkably close to Neolithic East.
Another curiosity: they've dug up AH-7 twice now, and though the remains are incredibly jumbled, the contents seem to reflect a great many more occupants than other excavated Holes.
Rune - Though not vast, the Marlborough & Fyfield Downs are quite broad, and the differences in stone make-up is negligible. So it would be impossible to stand by a particular shrub, point to the ground and say: "This is where Stone 12 came from!" (Unlike the morphologically divergent Bluestones)
This is because sarsen is actually the remnant of a huge shield-cap which was deposited something like 600 million years ago. Broken up by tectonic activity and the eventual Ice that scoured the North to about 45 degrees. (A lot of it was eventually pushed into what is now the Channel)
An interesting footnote is that the oddly shaped holes and crannies found in many of the standing Stones are actually depositional - formed while the cap was still intact and deep under water.
This cap laid over the even more ancient carboniferous limestone - the shells of tiny critters - deposited during Pangaea, aeons ago. Relentlessly scraped by millions of tons of Ice, we now have only the Chalk remaining in the South, but shattered bits of sarsen can still be found strewn about further north.
So then, to answer the question properly, the Circle Stones could have come from anywhere in the vicinity of the Downs, but the actual provenance would be difficult because this Stone is virtually identical for the surrounding hundreds of miles. But these fields did hold greater concentrations of it than other places, and we know that the folks at Avebury were also harvesting it from these locations at the same time.
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 26-04-2012 at 18:32
Jon said:
... it would be simpler to 'mass produce' the items (albeit over a very long period). If you were to mass produce items, it also makes a lot of sense to do that at source rather than as an on-site item, though 'final finishing' might more easily be done as an on-site process.
Transport is likely to have been a more difficult task than the final set to position, so my guess is that it's unlikely that there would be a defined materials stacking zone for sarsens. Why the North side Neil?
__________
There is little question - at least in my mind - that they must certainly have field-dressed the Sarsens at the quarry. I'm sure if investigators fished around up there they'd find evidence for this. I have a sense that many of the larger 'chips' were recovered and subsequently used not only as mauls, but as packing-stones for use in the holes during the erection process.
Standing at the Circle and look up the Avenue, turn to the left, almost due north, shortly across the A-344. This area has been found to contain great swaths of Sarsen chippings, and is presumed to be the site where the final finishing took place.
This was discovered in 2008 while they were doing that excavation work over there to determine what those pesky linear gouges were all about, parallel to the Avenue. These were the Periglacial Ice Striations I am always going on about.
My friend has strolled through this area and found any number of small chips pushed up by winter ice and gophers. He has a jar full of them.
(But will he send me a couple? Oh sure - cite the law! Pull out that tired old chestnut! Sheesh!)
Profile
Email
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 816
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 26-04-2012 at 18:35
Quote:
| My understanding is that AH-7 is as close to then-Cardinal East as they could get. One of the cool things about the time-span between the Aubreys and the Stone Circle is that AH-7 is the Only hole that has any semblance of an alignment passing through it. There is something significant going on there, possibly borne-out by all the carving on Stone 4, where the East line whisks past its right side. |
|
Hi Neil. Take a look at Cleal, page 25 (fig 13), then look at 269 (fig 156). Maybe you're expecting 56 to be labelled as 01? (34 and 6 are marginally rotated anticlockwise from cardinal East.)
Perhaps the image needs to be rotated by about 5 degrees for the top to represent cardinal East?
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2638
OFF-Line
| Posted 26-04-2012 at 18:48
I disagree Neil , it may depend on where you are measuring the orienation from but if it is one of the three accepted centres of the monument then AH 7 ,like all the Aubrey holes near the cardinal points is off ,in this case by at least three degrees .
There was no human bone excavtaed from AH7 , only pottery and sarsen and blustone fragments although Hawley did deposit 4 bags of bone there .
George
Quote:
|
On 2012-04-26 17:52, Feanor wrote:
My understanding is that AH-7 is as close to then-Cardinal East as they could get. One of the cool things about the time-span between the Aubreys and the Stone Circle is that AH-7 is the Only hole that has any semblance of an alignment passing through it. There is something significant going on there, possibly borne-out by all the carving on Stone 4, where the East line whisks past its right side.
Believe me - I have checked this time & again. It's remarkably close to Neolithic East.
Another curiosity: they've dug up AH-7 twice now, and though the remains are incredibly jumbled, the contents seem to reflect a great many more occupants than other excavated Holes.
|
|
[ This message was edited by: tiompan on 2012-04-26 19:20 ]
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 816
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 26-04-2012 at 19:18
Dunno if this helps, but the CAD model for a general landscape view was created using underlays from Cleal et all: Here's the overhead view (approximately from the west) rendered up and with numbers placed: (though it has a hedge superimposed which obscures the southern entry).
Though it's not obvious, there's a marginal rotation (of 6 and 34) about the centre:
Profile
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 26-04-2012 at 19:28
I love you guys.
Now drop dead!
LOL! Just kidding!
I don't have Cleal, unfortunately. It's about $200 bucks here and I would be roasted alive and pitched into an Aubrey Hole if I sent for it.
I will review the evidence, but I have little doubt that you're right, George.
Are you saying that 'East' actually occurs between 6 & 7?
I did not know about Hawley doing that! I was in the understanding that those old bones were always there.
My bad ...
Jon, if we rotate 56 one way or the other, it becomes a different number - 1 or 55 - based on either side of the Solstice-Alignment determining that system.
I will look at 6,7, & 8 again. Thanks, boys.
[ This message was edited by: Feanor on 2012-04-26 19:32 ]
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 26-04-2012 at 20:05
Thanks for that rendering, Jon.
Alrighty then ... I have gone back 'to the drawing board' and have found the most glaring possible error - perhaps in history.
All my calculations have been set to a 45/45-degree Avenue Alignment instead of the correct 39/51.
Emily is going to be very upset when she finds my body, as there will be all that blood on the keyboard and monitor to be cleaned ...
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 26-04-2012 at 21:00
OK - New Picture Posted at the top of the Page with the more-correct orientation.
So sorry about that, friends!
Profile
Email
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2638
OFF-Line
| Posted 26-04-2012 at 22:27
Neil , yes , closer to 6 than 7 , the other cardianl points are closer to being equidistant between the AH's . Sorry ,it was Newall (in 1935 ) who buried the bags not Hawley who had done the original excavation .
George
Quote:
|
On 2012-04-26 19:28, Feanor wrote:
I will review the evidence, but I have little doubt that you're right, George.
Are you saying that 'East' actually occurs between 6 & 7?
I did not know about Hawley doing that! I was in the understanding that those old bones were always there.
|
|
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 816
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 27-04-2012 at 08:06
Quote:
| OK - New Picture Posted at the top of the Page with the more-correct orientation. |
|
Erm.. cough.. splutter.. rotation.. clockwise rather than anti-clockwise.
PS: Look at page 230 of The Broken for a general East=Up plan of Stonehenge
[ This message was edited by: jonm on 2012-04-27 08:36 ]
Profile
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 27-04-2012 at 09:39
Possibly rotated clockwise for the interior features, but the opposite had to be true for the correct Avenue alignment of 39/51.
I did notice that East skims 8 instead of 6 (as George mentions) and was going to ask about this.
I will review TBS for your take - I have it right here.
Thanks guys.
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Main News