Featured Title:
Stone Lord: The Legend Of King Arthur, The Era Of Stonehenge by J P Reedman |
 |
| Inscribed Across the Landscape: The Cursus Monuments of Great Britain |
 |
| Login |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like your own home page, fewer ads, and your contributions link to your page. |
| Who's Online |
There are currently, 161 guests and 11 members online.
You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here |
| |
Moderated by : Andy B , TimPrevett , coldrum , Klingon , MickM , TheCaptain , bat400 , davidmorgan , Runemage , SolarMegalith , sem
The Megalithic Portal and Megalith Map : Index >>
Stones Forum >> Stonehenge Lintel Awareness Campaign
|
 |
| Page 1 of 9 ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 ) |
| Author |
Stonehenge Lintel Awareness Campaign |
Lintelman
Joined:
23-08-2012
Messages: 33
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 23-08-2012 at 14:35
Please have a look at the following poster. It should be fairly self-explanatory to subscribers of this blog, but I wonder how many have actually thought deeply about the significance, and difficulty of achieving, the precision of the upper horizontal surface of the lintel circle/arc.
Another campaign member (and civil engineer as myself) also points out that the significance may also be replicated in the careful carving of the inner face of the lintels.
We are not making claims about the purpose of these features, but we feel that their significance is in danger of being overlooked.
If you have difficulty downloading the poster, it can be obtained at the named website - no charge - no commitment - no copyright.
[ This message was edited by: Lintelman on 2012-08-23 16:07 ]
 Profile
 Email
 Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
|  Posted 24-08-2012 at 03:07
Welcome Lintelman!
Fabulous Name!
I think you'll find many Members here at the Portal will enjoy hearing all about the Stonehenge Sarsen Lintels!
Among the most cleverly engineered features of SH, the lintels sometimes Are overlooked, it's true. Most interested people know about the famous Mortise & Tenons, and also about the transverse Lock-Joints. Some few perusers are also aware that each has a longitudinal curve in them to create the illusion of a continuous ring when emplaced.
They are also all smooth on the inside.
Less well-known (though scarcely a secret) is that in the 101-foot diameter of the Circle, the Lintels are a mere 1-inch out of level, front-to-back - and much of this error might be forgiven due to the 4,000 year age of the place.
(Some Settling May Occur!)
The Horizon no doubt plays a role here, in that, because of the Periglacial Ice Striations, Stonehenge was by circumstance placed on a gentle down-slope. This means that the NE Stones had to be taller out of the ground than the SW Stones. We see this roughly reflected in the stone-hole depths as well.
Making the Lintels level to the curvature of the Earth was therefore a bit of a challenge.
Curiously, the Carpentry Techniques used in their fashioning might at first glance seem unnecessary. The ~13 foot-long Lintels weigh about 7 tons each, so in reality, where are they going?
It is now virtually established that the use of Carpentry Joints was an emulation of what is felt existed at the Durrington Walls Timber Circles. Both played roles as the opposite sides of the same coin, and it's thought that they were constructed identically and simultaneously - one in Wood, the other in Stone. One for the Living - one for the Dead.
Sadly, there are now only 6 in-place Circle Lintels at Great Henge now - almost too few to get a real sense of how Majestic the place must have been in its heyday.
Luckily, the 4 Alignment Cup-Marks are still there, though seldom viewed, as they exist on the sky-side of Lintel 130. These marks may have assisted the Builders in placing this first Lintel correctly to the Solstice Alignment.
So anyway, Yes! Do say on about the Stonehenge Circle Lintels!
And Welcome!
I shall download your poster, as it is a very worthy endeavor.
Best wishes,
Neil
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Lintelman
Joined:
23-08-2012
Messages: 33
OFF-Line
| Posted 24-08-2012 at 13:22
Many thanks for the welcome Neil, and the opportunity to say more.
About four years ago, while researching a novel, I came to realise that few people outside the archaeological fraternity and that of the amateur enthusiasts, knew anything of the interlocking of the lintels. Even fewer were aware, or had even considered, the difficulties of the builders in achieving the horizontal and vertical alignment of this structure.
Having been a civil engineer, the difficulty of constructing the lintel circle has been quite obvious to me for a long time, and I have been frustrated at the resources being spent on investigating features that, to my mind, were of lesser importance. I have in mind the erection of the replica trilithon by Richards and Whitby, for example. Don't get me wrong: I am sure their work was important, but the engineering problems associated with the trilithons were nothing like as demanding as getting the lintel circle constructed.
Then I discovered Colin Renfrew's book Prehistory: the Making of the Human Mind, and his references to the importance of 'symbolism' in cognitive archaeology. This opened my eyes to the immense significance of the lintel circle (or was it an arc) in a completely different dimension.
So, by pulling together the engineering paradigm and that of the anthropologist I concluded that we have, in the lintel circle, a feature that speaks volumes by virtue of its shape, alignment and difficulty of construction.
Why should these early bronze-age people decide that they needed a horizontal surface constructed in stone?
Was it intended as an artificial horizon?
Did they need longevity?
Did they need rigidity?
These questions lead on:
1. An artificial horizon is ideal for measuring azimuths.
2. If it is durable and rigid, you can measure variation over long periods of time.
3. If you have a circular, horizontal face of rock upon which you can mark the position of star risings, you don't need to haul uprights around to achieve the same purpose. You just make a make on the inner face of the circle.
4. Is there a possibility that the required longevity meant that they were trying to measure precession?
There are a number of other thoughts on my website, and I am working on the feasibility of number 3. So far, I have calculated that they would have been able to measure an azimuth variation of 175mm around the lintels in 72 years. This needs checking, however. And I am concerned that the precession idea shouldn't overshadow the possibility that the lintel circle served some other, equally significant astronomical purpose, maybe lunar standstills for example.
Oh, I could go on for hours ...
But whatever the purpose, surely more people should be made aware that these ignorant savages, were actually, pretty clever geometricians and engineers. Then we might get a more reasoned disposition of research resources.
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 24-08-2012 at 14:58
Hiya LintelMan!
I too can go on for hours about Stonehenge! (As everyone here knows; avoiding me like the plague!)
A couple of things ...
I am truly enthusiastic about your project - never think otherwise! I'm sitting here drinking my morning coffee with a rather bemused look on my face as I read your words.
A Stonehenge Lintel Awareness Group?
Why didn't I think of that!?
As a stand-alone edifice, Stonehenge has baffled the lay and the learned for centuries. All manner of explanations have been forwarded as to its purpose, and many of these regard Astronomical Purpose.
This is understandable. I mean really - an enormous circle of Stones with a perfectly level cap-ring? Seriously, it could only be for any of several inclusive aspects for observing the Heavens.
However, Stonehenge is Not a stand-alone edifice. It interlocks (pun intended) with a number of equally important sites and was but one component in a much larger Cultural Landscape - a Landscape we now know was Regional in a minimum sense, but more probably 'International' in broad scope.
While its shape, size and precision evince any number of potential corollarys, the primary purpose was not astronomical - at least to the extent that many believe.
My own view is that it defines & demonstrates the Neolithic Cosmos in a simple & elegant fashion, while serving as a Life Terminus for "Worthy People", i.e. a very fancy cemetery. It cleverly incorporates the Physical and the Metaphysical in a way that incorporates many of the previous building stages into the Monument we now see today.
(This is necessarily a very short version of my thinking, and I would be happy to relay my ideas another time)
Now, with your curious ideas firmly in mind, I earnestly advise you to contact Jonm, as he's known on this site. I notice he's commented on your page, so you've already heard of him. I urge you to review his website: Heaven's Henge, A Geocentric World View. http://heavenshenge.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/understanding-patent-gb2486636-part-5.html
His has among the most interesting, carefully considered, and 'sane' ideas I've ever heard, and uses many of the same SH features you mention for his remarkably compelling rationale. He's a Chartered Engineer, so you fellows will speak the same language. (lol)
Being a member of the Megalithic Portal has expanded his copious knowledge of the Stonehenge Environs and it seems the more he learns, the more proof he obtains for his theory - a very rare occurrence.
In closing, my perusal of your own site included the book-excerpt you've posted. Without fear of contradiction sir, it is among the most well-written pieces I have read in several years. It's extraordinarily refreshing to review someone who actually knows how to craft a story and then convey it with such panache!
If you are the Author, what the devil are you doing here!?
Best Wishes,
Neil
_____________________________
Profile
Email
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 817
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 24-08-2012 at 15:19
A Stonehenge Lintel Awareness Group?
Why didn't I think of that!?
SLAG?
I think Lintelman has a slightly better acronym!
Jon
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 817
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 24-08-2012 at 15:41
Welcome Lintelman
The curious thing about the level lintels is that the builders obviously had the capability to get things level. Given that they knew how to get things level, why would they then chose to locate a monument, designed to sight from an artificial horizon, into a landscape where they could easily tell that the distant horizon (being sighted to) is not level?
For example, to the east, the hills at about 6-8km away raise the horizon by just under 1 degree. To the North there are hills.
The second curious decision is the selection of Sarsen: A material which can be shaped, but at extreme cost, to give an exceptionally durable surface. Curious because chalk, the local material, can also be shaped much more accurately and at a much lower cost. It too can be made durable providing you're willing to maintain it (but only in the sense of resisting weathering) by the use of daub: A process that we also know, from the houses built before Stonehenge, they were familiar with.
Jon
Profile
Reply
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 1704
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| Posted 25-08-2012 at 00:03
Hi Lintelman (and again welcome)
As you alluded to, was a full circle of lintels ever intended? Most people assume "yes" but there is no evidence for this - a lack of stone holes in the SW.
More importantly, there is a "bluestone" (no.150 I think) that was sculptured as a lintel. As the current theory puts the bluestones at the earliest stage of SH, any ideas?
Best wishes to your slags, or was that slacs?
Sem
Profile
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 25-08-2012 at 02:34
Hiya Sem! (long time/no see)
Can I answer these? Can I? Huh? Huh?
There's been some thinking recently that there might have been a wooden infill-type screen where 17 & 18 were supposed to be.
S-11 is another possible screening infill, but that's a long story ...
For many years, off and on, whatever went on inside Stonehenge was not meant to be viewed by the General Public, as it were. Most now know that there was a very long hedge running diagonally, roughly NE > SW over on the west side. Now there's evidence suggesting that later there was an encircling hedge around it, roughly corresponding to the space between the mysterious Y&Z holes.
(OK - StoneHedge, right?)
None of this is conclusive I hasten to add, but with this hedge in mind, and since punky S-11 faces the Southern Entrance, it's thought that a type of screen would act as a partition. There may even have been a timber Lintel between 10 & 12, with 11 functioning as a kind of 'turnstile', but this is unsupported. Anyway, the same would be true at S-18 & 19 in the SW, and thus the presumed screens would be in keeping with the 'Secret Sanctity' of the edifice.
So it's pretty clear that the Circle of Stone Lintels was not continuous, certainly in one, and probably two locations.
BS-150 as well as finely crafted, half-buried BS-36 are both double-mortised, and the scours are the same distance apart on each. This implies that at some point these Stones were used as lintels upon uprights of the same height.
The best explanation is the contents of the notorious Q&R Holes, now known to have been moved around almost continuously over the centuries, and were most probably in place in some form when the Trilithons went up. The Double-Arc of 40+ holes are set the same distance apart as the mortises on the two left-over Bluestones.
A bolster for this fairly easy deduction is that several Inner Bluestones appear to have worn tenons on them.
With regard to the suspected screen-infills, let's not forget the groove in BS-68 or the extrusion on badly broken & melted BS-66.
So the Bluestones are not only among the oldest residents at Great Henge, but were multi-purpose commodities over the entire life of the Monument as well.
Neil
Profile
Email
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2641
 ON-Line
| Posted 25-08-2012 at 08:32
Neil , worth mentioning that since the Darvill & Wainwright excavation in 2008 it is now seen that the earlier Atkinson sequence of the Q and R holes predating the sarsens monument was mistaken and they are now considered to ahve been contemporary with the main csarsen construction phase and as they found one cse of a Q hole cutting the hole of a stone from the sarsen circle , possibly later .
George
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 817
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 25-08-2012 at 08:58
His has among the most interesting, carefully considered, and 'sane' ideas I've ever heard, and uses many of the same SH features you mention for his remarkably compelling rationale. He's a Chartered Engineer, so you fellows will speak the same language. (lol)
Being a member of the Megalithic Portal has expanded his copious knowledge of the Stonehenge Environs and it seems the more he learns, the more proof he obtains for his theory - a very rare occurrence.
Thanks for the kind words Neil. Much appreciated! I also enjoyed reading the extract from Lintelman's book (must try to find the time to read the whole thing.. but so little time at the moment)
Jon
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 817
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 25-08-2012 at 09:14
Neil , worth mentioning that since the Darvill & Wainwright excavation in 2008 it is now seen that the earlier Atkinson sequence of the Q and R holes predating the sarsens monument was mistaken and they are now considered to ahve been contemporary with the main csarsen construction phase and as they found one cse of a Q hole cutting the hole of a stone from the sarsen circle , possibly later.
It does seem so George. Which would beg the question, from a practical point of view, why would you complete the ring of sarsens, if you knew that you would have to get large bluestones in and out on a fairly regular basis (together with whatever else went in and out). It might be better to have a service entry located somewhere round the back. Two possible locations are ideal: 17/18 or 13/14. If you've chosen to put a second small service entry adjacent to 11 (a 'south entry'), then 17/18 would probably be the better choice.
That's the reasoning I used back in 2010/11 to develop the text and the CAD images of the monument for the novel. It'll be interesting to see what the final results of the ground scans are (I understand they're all sworn to secrecy until October). Any thoughts before they release the data?
Profile
Reply
|
Lintelman
Joined:
23-08-2012
Messages: 33
OFF-Line
| Posted 25-08-2012 at 10:58
Thanks for this Neil. I am in contact with Jonm, as you may deduce from later posts. And I like very much his ideas on the hinge and I agree that the whole landscape in the vicinity implies an ancient place of worship, but past generations of even our own societies did not separate the physical from the metaphysical so readily as we do now - or at least used to do in the days of modernism. In my view, the development of the analytic 'scientific method' has been all very well over the past couple of centuries, but it has pushed us too far into silo thinking. Personally I don't have a problem with a religious enthusiasm being allied to astronomy.
I'd like to offer more but I have to play with my grandson today. With a real surname of Wiltshire he might even be the 180th generation from one of the guys cutting these stones!
Jack
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 25-08-2012 at 16:29
Lintelman!
It's my own son's 27th Birthday today, and though I have (as yet) no grandchildren, I do remember the days where "Playing Catch" et.al. was the most important aspect of the weekend.
George! I knew if I stepped in it, you'd be there to scrape my shoe!
But my words may have been miss-interpreted.
I said: ... the notorious Q&R Holes, now known to have been moved around almost continuously over the centuries, and were most probably in place in some form when the Trilithons went up.
I believe this means that I agree with the new supposition. I didn't elaborate about the Q&R over-cut as I felt my post was wandering away from the main point.
(As you know, I hardly Ever do that!)
Perhaps the sentence was confusing, but my intention was to agree.
Good to see you my friend!
Neil
[ This message was edited by: Feanor on 2012-08-25 16:39 ]
Profile
Email
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2641
ON-Line
| Posted 25-08-2012 at 17:19
Jon ,first thought ,I should read my posts before posting , how do you manage to read and understand them with all the mistukes ?
Look forward to the results . Fwiw , if the two components sarsens and stones for the Q and R holes were roughly contemporaneous then no problem .The gap in the SW is the intriguing bit, I'll go for the non completed sarsen ring and therefore allowing for the natural service entry .
George
Quote:
|
On 2012-08-25 09:14, jonm wrote:
Neil , worth mentioning that since the Darvill & Wainwright excavation in 2008 it is now seen that the earlier Atkinson sequence of the Q and R holes predating the sarsens monument was mistaken and they are now considered to ahve been contemporary with the main csarsen construction phase and as they found one cse of a Q hole cutting the hole of a stone from the sarsen circle , possibly later.
It does seem so George. Which would beg the question, from a practical point of view, why would you complete the ring of sarsens, if you knew that you would have to get large bluestones in and out on a fairly regular basis (together with whatever else went in and out). It might be better to have a service entry located somewhere round the back. Two possible locations are ideal: 17/18 or 13/14. If you've chosen to put a second small service entry adjacent to 11 (a 'south entry'), then 17/18 would probably be the better choice.
That's the reasoning I used back in 2010/11 to develop the text and the CAD images of the monument for the novel. It'll be interesting to see what the final results of the ground scans are (I understand they're all sworn to secrecy until October). Any thoughts before they release the data?
|
|
Profile
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 25-08-2012 at 18:45
Jon,
You correctly name S-17 & S-18 as never installed. (I have mentioned them as 18/19. Oversight on my part - so many numbers!)
But you also mention S-13 & 14.
Remnants of 12, 14, & 15 are still on-site, and while I don't actually know if there's a Stone-Hole for 13, the Stone itself is missing.
So I wondered if you meant a possible opening at that location.
If 10/11/12 are also some sort of opening, having an omitted 13 doesn't make sense, esthetically.
I have a feeling (though no in-hand proof) that 13 was installed, but like 20 & 24, (for which the Stone-Holes are present) got broken up and carted away at some point along the Ages.
Having said this, it leave only 3 missing Sarsens, as opposed to many missing lintels, and a euphemistic ton of Bluestones.
Smashing up the Big Boys must have been almost more trouble than it was worth.
[ This message was edited by: Feanor on 2012-08-25 18:55 ]
Profile
Email
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 817
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 25-08-2012 at 18:58
Jon ,first thought ,I should read my posts before posting , how do you manage to read and understand them with all the mistukes ?
As long as the letters are in more or less the correct position, I'll understand it (probably won't even notice there's a mistake)!
Look forward to the results . Fwiw , if the two components sarsens and stones for the Q and R holes were roughly contemporaneous then no problem .The gap in the SW is the intriguing bit, I'll go for the non completed sarsen ring and therefore allowing for the natural service entry .
Possible, but then why decide to move some of the Q&R stones out later and also reposition them, if you never got round to finishing the monument? The subsequent moving stuff out and re-jigging all the internal positions does lean towards it being in use: It seems a lot of work compared to infilling one or two missing ones round the back.
If there's evidence of only one or two missing ones round the back, this strikes me as either intentional or perhaps something which was of no consequence to what their idea of 'finished' meant.
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2641
ON-Line
| Posted 25-08-2012 at 19:06
It's such a mess working out the Swiss cheese and the moving stuff about is puzzling . A work in constant flux until it stopped ?
George
Quote:
|
On 2012-08-25 18:58, jonm wrote:
Jon ,first thought ,I should read my posts before posting , how do you manage to read and understand them with all the mistukes ?
As long as the letters are in more or less the correct position, I'll understand it (probably won't even notice there's a mistake)!
Look forward to the results . Fwiw , if the two components sarsens and stones for the Q and R holes were roughly contemporaneous then no problem .The gap in the SW is the intriguing bit, I'll go for the non completed sarsen ring and therefore allowing for the natural service entry .
Possible, but then why decide to move some of the Q&R stones out later and also reposition them, if you never got round to finishing the monument? The subsequent moving stuff out and re-jigging all the internal positions does lean towards it being in use: It seems a lot of work compared to infilling one or two missing ones round the back.
If there's evidence of only one or two missing ones round the back, this strikes me as either intentional or perhaps something which was of no consequence to what their idea of 'finished' meant.
|
|
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 817
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 25-08-2012 at 19:15
you correctly name S-17 & S-18 as never installed. (I have mentioned them as 18/19. Oversight on my part - so many numbers!)
It's not official yet though? Trouble with things like ground scanning is that the data tends to be indicative rather than confirmative of itself. Not always the case but scans that I've seen haven't always yielded entirely accurate results (mind you this in a construction setting and I've no idea what they're up to over there)
Remnants of 12, 14, & 15 are still on-site, and while I don't actually know if there's a Stone-Hole for 13, the Stone itself is missing.
So I wondered if you meant a possible opening at that location.
Sorry Neil.. just confusing matters. I needed a defined service entry for my 'stonehenge' design (in the book). The choice was between 17/18 and the areas of 13/14 (I'm starting to forget some of this stuff now). 17/18 was a better choice because because it gives better access to Stones 57-58 (ramp) and allows stuff to be brought in and out (15/16 face onto the Great Trilithon so aren't a good place to locate a service entry). There was another reason I think.. I forget. But the whole of the SW segment is largely irrelevant from this perspective: A place to keep the 'spares'.
If 10/11/12 are also some sort of opening, having an omitted 13 doesn't make sense, esthetically.
It doesn't does it? unless perhaps you use infill panels for the stuff you really don't care about.
Smashing up the Big Boys must have been almost more trouble than it was worth.
Yes. Agreed. Way more trouble than it's worth. I doubt we'll ever know why that happened.
we're going off topic a bit. But I guess the missing stuff is relevant.
[ This message was edited by: jonm on 2012-08-25 19:18 ]
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 817
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 25-08-2012 at 19:34
It's such a mess working out the Swiss cheese and the moving stuff about is puzzling . A work in constant flux until it stopped ?
Could well be. But there's a hell of a lot of planning gone into this monument. The stuff that seems to remain a constant throughout all the subsequent changes is the sarsens rather than the blues.
Trouble with bluestone, as I understand it, is that it's rather fragile compared to Sarsen and, whilst it weathers slowly, it wouldn't have withstood any really heavy knocks.
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2641
ON-Line
| Posted 25-08-2012 at 19:59
In comparison with sarsen most stones will be softer but they managed to egt from Wales to Wiltshire and most are still standing , so not that soft .
george
Quote:
|
On 2012-08-25 19:34, jonm wrote:
It's such a mess working out the Swiss cheese and the moving stuff about is puzzling . A work in constant flux until it stopped ?
Could well be. But there's a hell of a lot of planning gone into this monument. The stuff that seems to remain a constant throughout all the subsequent changes is the sarsens rather than the blues.
Trouble with bluestone, as I understand it, is that it's rather fragile compared to Sarsen and, whilst it weathers slowly, it wouldn't have withstood any really heavy knocks.
|
|
Profile
Reply
| |
| Go to Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
|
|
|
|
|
IMPORTANT NOTES: This site uses COOKIES. Please do not use this web site if you do not agree to our Terms and Conditions of use.
If you plan to visit ancient sites in person, please make sure you follow our Charter.
Articles, photographs and comments are the property of their respective authors or contributors, please contact them for permission to reproduce. Site design ©1997-2012 Andy Burnham.
|
Main News