Sometime ago I asked a colleague at Stonehenge to stand where the middle of Stonehole 97 was excavated. I have roughly photoshopped a copy of the Heelstone on top of the image to give an indication of how it might have looked if there had been two stones, some think Stonehole 97 was the original position of the Heelstone and it was moved from there to its present position.
You will note the marker for the stonehole to the right of the picture, for more on its position see: http://www.sarsen.org/2015/12/the-position-of-stone-hole-97.html
I'm a little concerned that, after the present generation is gone, future researchers will use these incorrect markers to formulate new ideas. Marginal tolerances are to be expected, (see also: Aubrey Holes), but not to tens of feet.ReplyDelete
As a loud proponent of the Single Sunstone school, I contend that, not only was S-97 the original Layout Marker, but that it was socketed to a lower depth. The present tilt aside, I think the top of that little scoop we see at about 7.00 is the depth it most likely was. On moving it to where it is now, they lifted it higher so the sun would correctly peen off the top as it arced into the sky.
Stepping cautiously out onto the proverbial limb, I also suspect that it was rotated 90-degrees so that the more flat, present backside, was originally aimed at the northeast.
File under: My Two Cents
It is a condition of the geocentric hypothesis that S97 would have had to have been moved to the correct alignment (the Heelstone is correct and the original avenue is slightly off): Heel is related to rotate and is derived from the same saxon root as wheel: There can only be one axis of rotation at any one time (if that is what it meant)ReplyDelete
When I did the original research into these two locations, most of the archaeo texts seemed to indicate that there would have been two stones. There hasn't been any progress on this has there Neil?
There's still a few out there, but most others are coming around. Some do think there were two at one time, yes, but it's fairly obvious that they weren't both there at the same time.Delete
I mean, all you have to do is look at it, right? The two stones are not symmetrically positioned, and the place is nothing if not 'eye-pleasing'.
As everyone knows, I take it further by saying it was the same stone, moved.
Remember - this discovery, in terms of SH research, is very recent. 1979/80. That's last week as these things go.
Yes.. odd. Plus there's Mike Pitt's discovery of the ditch which showed that the time-sequence was different for each of the locations (it was Mike wasn't it.. I forget).Delete
There's very little debate about archaeology, so easy to think that older texts (say more than 20 years old) are still current.
Some of the stuff written in the 90s is still good, certainly. Heck - there's stuff from the 50s that are still relevant - though caution is advised when fishing through the work.Delete
Yes, it was Mike Pitts that found S-97. That was an emergency dig in 79 done because the electric company had started trenching a new conduit on the wrong side of the road! The well known picture by Arthur Simon of a young Mike Pitts crouched by the trench is fun - especially when we realize that it's Richard Atkinson who's crouched right next to him!