JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for BRITARCH Archives


BRITARCH Archives

BRITARCH Archives


BRITARCH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BRITARCH Home

BRITARCH Home

BRITARCH  October 2015

BRITARCH October 2015

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: UNITY

From:

Constantinos Ragazas <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:48:41 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (230 lines)

Orion,

Your "moat" idea is contradicted by the facts in the ground. If unimpeded water flow was intended, why build a segmented ditch?

What "UNITY" have to do with "moat"? Please explain.

Kostas
[log in to unmask]


-----Original Message-----
From: Orion <[log in to unmask]>
To: BRITARCH <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tue, Oct 20, 2015 11:22 PM
Subject: [BRITARCH] UNITY



<div id="AOLMsgPart_1_66c4a864-002e-4ee3-b237-86ab9f67c777" style="margin: 0px;font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, Sans-Serif;font-size: 12px;color: #000;background-color: #fff;">

<pre style="font-size: 9pt;"><tt>Greetings,

As unimaginable as it may seem to most members of the list, it is,
even yet,
possible that there remain amongst us a small number (not many, maybe
one or
two) of individuals who are not entirely convinced of the Surrounding
Moat
of Stonehenge (Rockhenge) Hypothesis.

No, it's true.  These pedantics
just could not take for granted that the
builders would not have taken the
trouble of providing such a moat unless
they were sure that water would be
available to fill it.  They argued that
the area around Stonehenge is dry, the
underlying rock is too permeable, no
possibility of water to flow into a
moat.

But now  their doubts may be assuaged by new findings that will settle
the
water availability question once and for all.

Relief comes in the form
of none other than the 21st century's  most
prominent Stonehenge expert MIKE
PARKER-PEARSON (MPP).

MPP writes of a watercourse that rose from a spring at
Lark Hill and flowed
past the eastern end of the Cursus and terminated near
where the Stonehenge
Avenue approaches the Avon at West Amesbury. 
(See
paragraph below by MPP)

We know also from this that the people of that era
were adept at directing
water to flow where they wanted it to flow since the
spring that Mike Parker
Pearson describes rises at Larkhill and flows past the
eastern end of the
Cursus which is to the west of  King Barrows Ridge and ends
in West Amesbury
which is to the east of the ridge.  Since 'natural
watercourses' do not
normally  cross ridges we may be reasonably certain that
this watercourse
was manually directed from its natural course into Stonehenge
Bottom and
redirected to flow to the Avenue at West Amesbury. 

The elevation
at the eastern end of the Cursus is 112 meters above sea
level.  The highest
point at Stonehenge is less than 105 meters.
For a spring to flow at 112 meters
or higher, the water table would have had
to be at least that high, and the
potentiometric surface may have been even
much higher than the spring. 


Stonehenge and the Cursus share the same water table, so it is
entirely
possible (if not probable) that there may have been a spring to
the
northwest of Stonehenge that could have supplied water to fill a
moat.

If such a spring did exist and fed water to a surrounding moat, the
stream
would have necessarily entered the moat at the northwest highest point
at
Stonehenge where there happens to be (coincidentally) an opening through
the
outer wall of the ditch (moat), exactly what is to be expected if the
ditch
were a moat.

In view of the above, it is entirely reasonable to
believe that the source
of water to fill the surrounding moat could have been a
spring to the
northwest of Stonehenge - possibly in the vicinity of the western
end of the
Cursus, possibly closer to the monument, but the water course that
MPP
speaks of is longer than would be required at Stonehenge.

So the above,
verified by MPP's account, shows that water to fill a moat at
Stonehenge was
possible.

The question then is, "Did such a spring and stream actually
exist?".

We know where to look for the answer to that.  Since the stream
would have
flowed into the moat through the opening in the ditch at the
northwest, an
investigation of the area across which the stream would have
flowed should
provide some indication of the stream bed or trench.  Excavation,
ground
radar, core drilling or perhaps other means should be able to provide
the
answer.  

One caveat.  An old roadbed lies tangent to Stonehenge 
immediately to the
northwest.  At some point in the construction, usage, or
dismantling of that
roadbed any evidence of a stream may have been lost, so an
investigation to
find evidence of a stream may need to be carried out some
distance away from
the ditch, but that location also should not be difficult to
pin point. 

 No, I am not offering to finance a search for the spring or
the
watercourse.  I am already a believer.


Incidentally,  about twenty
years ago I posted to this list an admittedly
very unlikely  hypothesis, one
requirement of which was the need for a good
supply of water at the point where
the Stonehenge Avenue crosses Kings
Barrow Ridge.  I was assured at the time,
by a list member who told us that
he had participated in the Sankey Canal
Restoration, (which fact obviously
made him an expert on where water could or
could not have flowed in the
Neolithic) that there was no possibility of a
water supply at that point.
Of course, there was no way at the time to prove
there was a watercourse
that flowed exactly through that point, so MPP's
account is, if late, most
gratifying. Exoneration always is. 
Thanks
Mike.

MPP's remarks below

Thanks for your attention.  It would be
interesting to hear what others
think.

Orion

######################################################

MATERIALIZING
STONEHENGE

Mike Parker-Pearson writes:

The Stonehenge Avenue's precise
terminus and character at the
riverbank is not known but it is located
immediately downstream from a
spring which marks the end of a former water
course that once rose on
Larkhill. The spring was probably higher up this small
valley in the
Neolithic but the link with Larkhill may be deliberate rather
than fortuitous.

This water course, insignificant today, may have been an
important
feature of the sacred landscape of the Neolithic: as well as rising
on
Larkhill, it also flows past the east end of an important earlier
monument,
the Greater Cursus, which crosses the Stonehenge bowl
from east to west. This
Cursus is another linear monument, consisting of
parallel ditches and internal
banks running for over 2.5 km; it has not been
firmly dated by excavation but
is accepted on the available evidence to have
been built around 3400-3000 BC,
the Middle Neolithic. This class of linear
monuments is found throughout
Britain 
247
Their purpose is unclear although they are recognized to have
had
ritual and ceremonial significance. Their most important feature is
their
relationship with the surrounding landscape, particularly water:
most
cursuses are positioned with water courses running perpendicular to
them,
either at their ends or through their middles, and the Greater Cursus is
no
exception.

########################################
</tt></pre>
</div> <!-- end of AOLMsgPart_1_66c4a864-002e-4ee3-b237-86ab9f67c777 -->

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager