When one looks at the construction of the outer rock circle at
Rockhenge and how the lintels are jointed to the uprights it ought to
give us a clue that this is an adaptation from carpentry.
This should lend itself to us to supposing that the builders had a
developed skill at woodworking.
This should then make us think that there was a lot of wooden
construction going on, which we now have little evidence, but surely
We only have to look at the skill of the craftsmen who produced the
ornate and intricate metalwork, that we find in the burials, to give
us a clue that these were highly skilled people within a range of
Isn't it time we threw off the image of the naive and simple caveman
view of the neolithic people and adopt the view of intelligent and
capable ones instead?
On 10/21/15, John Wood <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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
>>> 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
>>> evidence of a depression that a stream would have created (anyway,
>>> have looked for that before). A leet or stream from the north-west or
>>> 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 :)