Register here - as a registered user you get more features and fewer ads.
Angie - some extracts from the report:
The SE side of Stone 16 is also exceptionally straight and well dressed, potentially indicating (in the absence of the NW face of Stone 15) that this too formed a regular rectangular sightline through the main NE-SW axis of the monument.
Grinding to a high polish. Small areas (<0.30m across) ground to a high polish were
observed in facets of the fine transverse tooling on the base of the SW side of Stone 52
and the fine longitudinal tooling on the NW side of Stone 16. It is unclear if these areas represent a distinct style of dressing, or if they indicate that the stones were used as polisoirs before they were erected.
The absence of working on the exterior faces of Stones 14-16, and coarse finishes on the backs of Stones 10 and 11 is significant as these further demonstrate a significant contrast between the NE and SW sides of the monument, as well as indicating interior/exterior difference.
It should also be noted that the tenon on the NW side of Stone 16 is anomalous, as it is
an elongated oval rather than a circular domed form. It has been argued above that this
may represent a deliberate attempt to replicate the oval tenon on Stone 56, but equally it
may represent the site of an unformed tenon, i.e. the ridge would be reduced to a circular
tenon once the precise location of the mortise had been determined. If this is the case
then this ridge may indicate that a lintel was not positioned on one side of this stone.
You should see if you can get hold of some of the hi-res views of stone 16...
Something is not right. This message is just to keep things from messing up down the road