Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!akgua!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
From: dgary@ecsvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.nlang.celts,net.astro,net.sci,net.physics,net.general,net.origins
Subject: Re: Stonehenge Hypotheses Extended
Message-ID: <2888@ecsvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Jul-84 08:02:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.2888
Posted: Tue Jul 10 08:02:36 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Jul-84 01:27:37 EDT
References: bonnie.144
Lines: 30

<>
Joe McGhee's comments suggesting the use of a small boat with mast as
a height reference during the construction of Stonehenge are interesting.
Similar suggestions have been made (not necessarily using a boat, but
using a water surface) for other archaelogical sites.  I think it's
a good idea that should be looked into.  However, I have a question
about one point:

>From: jmm@bonnie.UUCP (Joe Mcghee) Mon Jul  2 13:40:01 1984
>	On page 62 of "Stonehenge Decoded" Hawkins says:
>
>	"The first stage of the building seems to have been the simplest,
>	 but far from the easiest. That was the simultaneous digging of the
>	 ditches and piling up of the banks."
>
>This would seem to indicate that the ditches and banks were PREREQUISITES
>for the other structures that were to follow, namely, the stones.

My impression has been that Hawkins was speaking of a construction
period measuring centuries.  That is, if I understand it correctly,
the ditches were built first, then some decades or centuries later
came some small stones, then, after more centuries the big, impressive
structure we see now.  If this is so it doesn't mean a coracle wasn't
used as McGhee proposes, just that the ditch was probably not dug
with that in mind.  Does anyone know if I'm right on that?

D Gary Grady
Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC  27706
(919) 684-4146
USENET:  {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary