jmm@bonnie.UUCP (Joe Mcghee) (07/02/84)
Note: This article is an expansion of my original article entitled "New Answers to Mysteries of Stonehenge". As was mentioned in my reply to K. Kissel, the literature on Stonehenge refers to the need for an artificial horizon due to the irregularity of the natural horizon and even seasonal variations due to the growth of trees and shrubs. Some have suggested that most trees on the horizon were felled for this reason. One author suggested that the earthen bank just inside the ditch was set up to act as an artificial horizon. If this is true, it would have been very easy indeed to level this artificial horizon by use of the curragh or corwgl in the water-filled ditch. All that is necessary is to place an oar or pole across the gunwales of the curragh/corwgl and move it around the length of the ditch to level the bank. Any other method would probably require much more work or more sophisticated equipment. Just inside the bank is a rectangle formed by four "station stones" numbered 91, 92, 93 and 94 on the plan of the site. These four stones were used to make key sitings of the sun and moon at certain specific times of the year. These four stones also had to be leveled with respect to each other because critical sitings were made over the tops of these stones. The leveling of these four stones would also be quite easy from the curragh in the ditch. On page 62 of "Stonehenge Decoded" Hawkins says: "The first stage of the building seems to have been the simplest, but far from the easiest. That was the simultaneous digging of the ditches and piling up of the banks." This would seem to indicate that the ditches and banks were PREREQUISITES for the other structures that were to follow, namely, the stones. The words "ditches" and "banks" appear in the plural because there were also ditches and banks on either side of the straight avenue approaching the stone cirles. In the middle of the avenue the "heel stone" and other siting stones were located. We can infer that these straight ditches were also used to level the tops of the siting stones along this avenue in the manner previously described. Just inside the circular ditch and bank which we first considered and outside the circle of "Aubrey holes" is located a large rectangular stone which has been toppled. This is the largest stone adjacent to the circular ditch and bank. Within more recent times this stone was fancifully named "the slaughter stone" although there is no evidence that any sacrifice, either animal or human, was ever performed on it. Hawkins mentions that this stone was previously standing upright, but no one knows when it was toppled or by whom. This he states as evidence that it could not have been used for sacrifice. I would like to offer an alternative explanation for its purpose. This stone would have been very conveniently placed to act as reference or standard for the height marker previously mentioned on the mast of the curragh/corwgl. Whenever the builders were in doubt about the height of the mast marker they would simply return the curragh/corwgl to its home position next to the "slaughter stone". Hawkins also mentions numerous marks on the this stone with no explanation for them. These marks might have reference marks like the graduation lines on a ruler. J. M. McGhee bonnie!jmm
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (07/10/84)
<> Joe McGhee's comments suggesting the use of a small boat with mast as a height reference during the construction of Stonehenge are interesting. Similar suggestions have been made (not necessarily using a boat, but using a water surface) for other archaelogical sites. I think it's a good idea that should be looked into. However, I have a question about one point: >From: jmm@bonnie.UUCP (Joe Mcghee) Mon Jul 2 13:40:01 1984 > On page 62 of "Stonehenge Decoded" Hawkins says: > > "The first stage of the building seems to have been the simplest, > but far from the easiest. That was the simultaneous digging of the > ditches and piling up of the banks." > >This would seem to indicate that the ditches and banks were PREREQUISITES >for the other structures that were to follow, namely, the stones. My impression has been that Hawkins was speaking of a construction period measuring centuries. That is, if I understand it correctly, the ditches were built first, then some decades or centuries later came some small stones, then, after more centuries the big, impressive structure we see now. If this is so it doesn't mean a coracle wasn't used as McGhee proposes, just that the ditch was probably not dug with that in mind. Does anyone know if I'm right on that? D Gary Grady Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-4146 USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary