Print

Print


This nationally famous prehistoric monument is often described as being
'enigmatic' and in some ways it is.
There are, however, other prehistoric monuments, though not many, which
also share one quite enigmatic feature of this monument. A feature that is
quite surprising when considering the general rule of thumb in
archaeological investigation.
This enigma is that what we see as the present remains of the monument is
what we are expected to believe was all there was originally.
99.9999999% of all the other archaeological sites have bits missing but
apparently not at Rockhenge. (OK there are some rocks apprently missing but
it is understood they were removed since its original use.)
So why can't there have been additional, perhaps organic, features to the
original site that might support Orion's case?
Or would such a radical idea stone, sorry rock, too many boats?
On 3 Nov 2014 10:19, "Michael" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> With Orion's permission I've put his article online, hopefully in a
> slightly easier format to read:
>
> http://mons-graupius.co.uk/index.php/archaeology/80-the-
> surrounding-moat-of-stonehenge-i
>
> Although initially very sceptical as it seems very unlikely that there
> would be a suitable source of water, from what I read, he does provide
> sufficient evidence to seriously raise the possibility of a water filled
> ditch. However the big problem is the lack of any suitable permanent water
> supply.
>
> I have been scratching my head and checking maps to see whether I could
> conceive of any way to get the water to the site and I can't see anything.
> It seems unlikely that there could be a permanent water supply as the site
> is on an Eastward facing promontory so there is a very limited area to the
> west from which any water would have to come.
>
> So, all I can suggest, is that perhaps just as the monument seems to be
> aligned to a once a year solar event, perhaps the ditch was filled with a
> once a year "water event" - perhaps it was only intended to fill a few
> times a year in the heaviest rain. Less likely is that there was some kind
> of holding tank - but there's nothing to suggest such a feature which
> according to Orion's diagram and the local terrain would need to be to the
> west and up the hill south of the modern road.
>
> Mike
>