Using as my base the table in the Laser Scan report and adding the visible stones they missed here is my answer. 92.
Note, if a stone is broken and two separate bits of it are visible then it counts as two stones etc.
Stone 40g is not counted because all that is visible is a lead cap.
UPDATE - I missed stone 40 and so the total is now 92 not 91 as previously written.
I have checked this on the ground, but errors may remain, please comment if you spot any.
| Stone No. | Volume (m³) | Estimated above ground weight (tonnes) | Additional visible fragments |
| 1 | 5.45 | 13.08 | |
| 2 | 8.03 | 19.27 | |
| 3 | 5.55 | 13.32 | |
| 4 | 6.66 | 15.98 | |
| 5 | 5.64 | 13.53 | |
| 6 | 5.54 | 13.29 | |
| 7 | 5.97 | 14.32 | |
| 8* | 0.65 | 1.56 | |
| 9a/b | 0.25 | 0.29 | 1 |
| 10 | 7.07 | 16.96 | |
| 11† | 2.03 | 4.87 | |
| 12‡ | 6.32 | 15.16 | |
| 14‡ | 2.91 | 6.98 | |
| 15* | 1.31 | 3.14 | |
| 16 | 9.8 | 23.52 | |
| 19* | 1.65 | 3.96 | |
| 21 | 4.61 | 11.06 | |
| 22 | 5.47 | 13.128 | |
| 23 | 4.92 | 11.8 | |
| 25* | 2.95 | 7.08 | |
| 26* | 0.4 | 0.96 | |
| 27 | 5.21 | 12.48 | |
| 28 | 9.08 | 21.792 | |
| 29 | 6.95 | 16.68 | |
| 30 | 7.75 | 18.6 | |
| 51 | 9.86 | 23.66 | |
| 52 | 11.54 | 27.69 | |
| 53 | 7.56 | 18.14 | |
| 54 | 12.22 | 29.32 | |
| 55a/b | 6.6 | 15.84 | 1 |
| 56 | 9.61 | 23.06 | |
| 57 | 11.64 | 27.93 | |
| 58 | 10.02 | 24.04 | |
| 59a/b/c* | 9.1 | 21.84 | 2 |
| 60 | 9.01 | 21.62 | |
| 91 | 1.16 | 2.78 | |
| 93 | 0.56 | 1.34 | |
| 95‡ | 1.75 | 4.2 | |
| 96 | 12.47 | 29.92 | |
| 101 | 1.88 | 4.51 | |
| 102 | 2.7 | 6.48 | |
| 105 | 1.59 | 3.81 | |
| 107 | 2.1 | 5.04 | |
| 120* | 0.49 | 1.17 | |
| 122 | 2.7 | 6.48 | |
| 127* | 0.6 | 1.44 | |
| 130 | 2.6 | 6.24 | |
| 152 | 4.89 | 11.73 | |
| 154 | 7.29 | 17.49 | |
| 156 | 3.7 | 8.88 | |
| 158 | 6.9 | 16.56 | |
| 160* | 2.09 | 5.01 | 2 |
| 31 | 0.68 | 2.04 | |
| 32‡ | 0.38 | 1.14 | |
| 33 | 0.17 | 0.51 | |
| 34 | 0.11 | 0.33 | |
| 35a‡ | 0.0007 | 0.002 | |
| 35b‡ | 0.003 | 0.01 | |
| 36‡ | 0.09 | 0.27 | |
| 37 | 0.27 | 0.81 | |
| 38 | |||
| 39‡ | 0.16 | 0.48 | |
| 40 | |||
| 41‡ | 0.24 | 0.72 | |
| 42‡ | 0.1 | 0.3 | |
| 43 | |||
| 44 | |||
| 45‡ | 0.14 | 0.42 | |
| 46† | 0.14 | 0.34 | |
| 47 | 0.42 | 1.26 | |
| 48‡† | 0.066 | 0.16 | |
| 49 | 0.37 | 1.11 | |
| 61 | 0.32 | 0.96 | 1 |
| 62 | 0.41 | 1.23 | |
| 63 | 0.4 | 1.2 | |
| 64 | |||
| 65 | |||
| 67‡ | 0.53 | 1.59 | |
| 68 | 0.71 | 2.13 | |
| 69 | 0.72 | 2.16 | |
| 70 | 0.41 | 1.23 | |
| 72* | 0.51 | 1.53 | |
| 80 Altar Stone | 1 | ||
| 150 | |||
| Totals: | |||
| 84 | 680.962 | 8 | |
| Total Visible Stones 92 |
Click to enlarge - from http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/Stone_Plan.jpg/967px-Stone_Plan.jpg
I still reckon the Altar Stone should only count as one stone as the break in it is hidden from view.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't argue strongly either way but I'm trying to be consistent and to back your point there is no mention of 80a and 80b anywhere. Against that Atkinson's drawing, page 560 Cleal, shows it is seriously broken into two.
DeleteHuh ... live & learn.
ReplyDeleteI thought 80 was just worn by foot traffic - didn't know it was broken - even with 20 tons of S-55-B & L-156 laying across it.
I never heard of an 80-A or -B.\
Also, I see in the Laser Scan Images that 9A & 9B seem to be connected below the surface - again, worn down by feet over the aeons. Is this true Tim, or are they just showing the ground contours?
Neil
Cleal says 9 is broken in two, not sure what the laser scan is showing in Figure 20 but I am fairly sure it is the ground and grass.
Delete