Sunday, 12 June 2016

Choir Gaure, vulgarly called Stonehenge, on Salisbury Plain, described, restored, and explained

Mr Tom W Flowers has produced a book Stonehenge 1740 AD: John Wood's 1740 survey and report, transcribed and analyzed on C.A.D.which is a transcribed and annotated version John Wood's 1740 book, or as it was described "letter", known as "Choir Gaure, vulgarly called Stonehenge, on Salisbury Plain, described, restored, and explained".

Mr Flowers has some strong views on Stonehenge and its history which needn't bother us now but as a faithful and useful modern printing of this work it is welcome. It is only spoilt by the lack of the large scale plan which so much of the book references as John Wood explains how and where he surveyed it from. The smaller scale plans printed and on the associated website are useful but a touch inadequate. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a better alternative of the actual plans on the web. Mr Flowers also is a great believer in the Megalithic Yard, at 32.664 inches, and uses it as the scale on his plans. I have built a megalithic monument and I doubt we managed to get any large stone to within two inches of where we wanted it to go except by chance. I discover that there is a term and Wikipedia entry that covers it. Pseudoscientific metrology.

The annotations added to the actual book are a light and helpful touch and are useful, and the advert for his upcoming book and websites ( and are kept to an endnote.

The original book is available as a free download from Google books and is within the window below, but it seems to lack the original large plan.

But I like a printed book and so am pleased to add this to my Stonehenge library.

1 comment:

  1. Hi Tim,

    Quote, " a faithful and useful modern printing of this work.."

    Hmm, really?

    Mike Pitts has a slightly larger version at:

    Overlaying TF's onto this doesn't provide an exact fit. This is always the case outside of having the original in one's own hands and making an orthogonal image copy at high resolution, under precise scientific conditions - even then probably open to debate.

    The question then becomes, who's copy is the correct one. The answer is probably "neither", and therefore any accuracy claims, and hypotheses stemming from, can not be substantiated. It's all down to trust, and quite frankly I don't trust any of them. CAD "precision" is not the same as "accuracy" of interpretation. Even the most accurate laser scans are what they are - the current condition of Stonehenge as it stands, nothing more nothing less. Between Wood's survey and the laser scans is a history of extensive stone manipulation of one kind and another, both natural and man-made. There are also other surveys in-between and none of them can be taken as the definitive version, including Wood's.

    The only way to deal with Stonehenge's geometry and metrology is to treat its geometry mathematically. When you do that it shows two clear units of measurement being 11.65685 inches, which I call the Megalithic Roman Foot (MRF - to distinguish from the Roman Foot as we know it at around 11.66 inches) and 14.142 inches, which is that claimed by Stockdale(deceased) and Harris, as the Harris Stockdale Megalithic Foot (HSMF). The MY is a "sacred step", but because it is mathematically tied to the other two it is precisely 32.64 inches. This is why Thom's MY of 2.72 Imperial Feet, statistically, is precise but later had the +/- added for mathematical "error margin" purposes, since when anyone and everyone tries to put their own "correction/s" as to what the MY is and it's value. Thom was statistically correct and always will be.

    The mathematical model, which is impossible to deny and from which these units derive, point to a mathematical/abstract capability totally out of step with the technological capability of the times, as academia interprets it, and this is why archaeology is in denial. This is also why the plethora of theories posed by so many authors are welcomed, because they keep the public in total confusion, while the scholars debate at the highest levels how to deal with the matter. It's unfortunately going to be one of the longest "exit strategies" in archaeological history, and imho even some of the most foremost archaeologists are not being made aware of it.

    The details of this mathematical model are dynamite. So the first step is to make it widely known that such a mathematical model exists, and ask the question of our foremost archaeologists if they are aware of it. Once a critical mass of enquiries, from the discipline itself, to those at the highest level is reached then we might see some movement in the right scholarly direction.

    One has to learn to read between the lines, and in terms of accuracy, one only needs to compare Wood's plan with the "square/circle" plan presented here recently - and one has to ask some very serious questions as to what is going on.