We have to keep nudging ourselves, as a gentle reminder, that organic
material/evidence doesn't usually survive on most archaeological sites
and this ought to be the case at Rockhenge as well as any other site.
The rocks at Rockhenge are just part of the story!
On 10/21/15, Michael <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 21/10/2015 09:22, Tony Marsh wrote:
>> Hmm, the claim seems a bit far fetched. It's a pity SU1142 and SU1143 are
>> absent from the gov lidar library. The lie of the land is weakly uphill
>> from the proposed moat only in a directly westerly direction and lidar
>> fails us 200 metres from the henge in that direction. Contours reveal no
>> evidence of a depression that a stream would have created (anyway, people
>> have looked for that before). A leet or stream from the north-west or the
>> the north would have to cross a bit of a valley some 5 metres (at least)
>> lower that the proposed moat so one would expect to see some evidence of
>> the construction, even today.
>> Tony Marsh
> I am reminded of the Roman baths in Bearsden. They show all the signs of
> being baths, they look like any other Roman bath I've seen, but then I
> realised there was one small problem.
> The site is located on a promontory with no obvious way to supply
> running water and absolutely no indication of any ditch or other feature
> through which water would have reached the site. But again, on Barr hill
> - there are Roman "baths" and no possibility of a stream on the top of
> the hill.
> Somehow the Romans managed to make water flow "up hill" and no one seems
> to be able to explain how they did this. Indeed, at a place like bar
> hill, if the water were carried up the hill in buckets, surely there
> must have been some kind of water storage - but if so where? The
> mechanics of moving water uphill appear to be missing from the
> archaeological record.
> ... so .... it seems to me that the druids must have had some magic that
> allowed water to flow uphill :)