Atlantis Online
August 21, 2019, 08:26:28 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Scientists to drill beneath oceans
http://atlantisonline.smfforfree2.com/index.php/topic,8063.0.html
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Stonehenge and Other British Stone Monuments Astronomically Considered

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Stonehenge and Other British Stone Monuments Astronomically Considered  (Read 1324 times)
Ericka Bowman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 127



« Reply #30 on: January 12, 2009, 12:21:03 am »

the monument than the English who have visited it at different times for different purposes. It is said the

p. 47

fall of one great stone was caused in 1620 by some excavations, but this has been doubted; the fall of another in 1797 was caused by gipsies digging a hole in which to shelter, and boil their kettle; many of the stones have been used for building walls and bridges; masses weighing from 56 lb. downwards have been broken off by hammers or cracked off as a result of fires lighted by excursionists.

It appears that the temenos wall or vallum, which is shown complete in Hoare's plan of 1810, is now broken down in many places by vehicles indiscriminately driven over it. Indeed, its original importance has now become so obliterated that many do not notice it as part of the structure—that, in fact, it bears the same relation to the interior stone circle as the nave of St. Paul's does to the Lady Chapel (Fig. 10).

It is within the knowledge of all interested in archæology that not long ago Sir Edmund Antrobus, the owner of Stonehenge, advised by the famous Wiltshire local society, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, and the Society of Antiquaries, enclosed the monument in order to preserve it from further wanton destruction, and—a first step in the way of restoration—with the skilled assistance of Prof. Gowland and Messrs. Carruthers, Detmar Blow and Stallybrass, set upright the most important menhir, which threatened to fall or else break off at one of the cracks. This. menhir, the so-called "leaning stone," once formed one of the uprights of the trilithon the fall of the other member of which is stated by Mr. Lewis to have occurred before 1574. The latter, broken in two pieces,

p. 48

Report Spam   Logged
Ericka Bowman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 127



« Reply #31 on: January 12, 2009, 12:21:49 am »



FIG. 11.—The Leaning Stone in 1901.
Report Spam   Logged
Ericka Bowman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 127



« Reply #32 on: January 12, 2009, 12:22:12 am »

and the supported impost, now lie prostrate across the altar stone.

This piece of work was carried out with consummate

p. 49

skill and care, and most important conclusions; as we shall see in a subsequent chapter, were derived from the minute inquiry into the conditions revealed in the excavations which were necessary for the proper conduct of the work.

Let us hope that we have heard the last of the work of devastators, and even that, before long, some of the other larger stones, now inclined; or prostrate, may be set upright.

Since Sir Edmund Antrobus, the present owner, has acted on the advice of the societies I have named to enclose the monument, with a view to guard it: from destruction and desecration, he has been assailed on all sides. It is not a little surprising that the "unclimbable wire fence" recommended by the societies in question (the Bishop of Bristol being the president of the Wiltshire society, at the time) is by some regarded as a suggestion that the property is not national, the fact being that the nation has not bought the property, and that, it has been private property for centuries, and treated in the way we have seen.

Let us hope also that before long the gaps in the vallum may be filled up. These, as I have already stated, take away from the meaning of an important part of one of the most imposing monuments of the world. In the meantime it comforting to know that, thanks to what Sir Edmund Antrobus has done, no more stones will be stolen, or broken by sledge-hammers; that fires; that excavations such as were apparently the prime cause of the disastrous fall of one of the majestic trilithons in 1797; that litter, broken bottles

p. 50

and the like, with which too many British sightseers mark their progress, besides much indecent desecration, are things of the past.

If Stonehenge had been built in Italy, or France, or Germany, it would have been in charge of the State long ago.

 

I now pass from the monument itself to a reference to some of the traditions and historical statements concerning it.

Those who are interested in these matters should thank the Wiltshire Archæological and Natural History Society, which is to be warmly congratulated on its persistent and admirable efforts to do all in its power to enable the whole nation to learn about the venerable monuments of antiquity which it has practically taken under its scientific charge. It has published two most important volumes 1 dealing specially with Stonehenge, including both its traditions and history.

With regard to Mr. Long's memoir, it may be stated that it includes important extracts from notices of Stonehenge from the time of Henry of Huntingdon (twelfth century) to Hoare (1812), and that all extant information is given touching on the questions by whom the stones were erected, whence they came, and' what was the object of the structure.

From Mr. Harrison's more recently published bibliography, no reference to Stonehenge by any ancient author, no letter to the Times for the last twenty


p. 51

years dealing with any question touching the monuments, seems to be omitted.

It is very sad to read, both in Mr. Longs volume and the bibliography, of the devastation which has been allowed to go on for so many years and of the various forms it has taken.

 

As almost the whole of the notes which follow deal with the assumption of Stonehenge having been a solar temple, a short reference to the earliest statements concerning this view is desirable; and, again, as the approximate date arrived at by Mr. Penrose and myself in 1901 is an early one, a few words may be added indicating the presence in Britain at that time of a race of men capable of designing and executing such work. I quote from the paper communicated by Mr. Penrose and myself to the Royal Society:—

“As to the first point, Diodorus Siculus (ii., 47, ed. Didot, p. 116) has preserved a statement of Hecatæus in which Stonehenge alone can by any probability be referred to.

“‘We think that no one will consider it foreign to our subject to say a word respecting the Hyperboreans.

"'Amongst the writers who have occupied themselves with the mythology of the ancients, Hecatæus and some others tell us that opposite the land of the Celts. [ἐν τοῖς ἀντιπέραν τῆς Κελτικῆς τόποις] there exists in the Ocean an island not smaller than Sicily, and which, situated under the constellation of The Bear, is inhabited by the Hyperboreans; so called because they live beyond the point from which the North wind. blows. . . . If one may believe the same mythology, Latona was born in

p. 52

this island, and for that reason the inhabitants honour Apollo more than any other deity. A sacred enclosure [νῆσον] is dedicated to him in the island, as well as a magnificent circular temple adorned with many rich offerings. . . . The Hyperboreans are in general very friendly to the Greeks.'"

Report Spam   Logged
Ericka Bowman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 127



« Reply #33 on: January 12, 2009, 12:22:27 am »

“The Hecatæus above referred to was probably Hecatæus of Abdera, in Thrace, fourth century B.C.; a friend of Alexander the Great. This Hecatæus is said to have written a history of the Hyperboreans that it was Hecatæus of Miletus, an historian of the sixth century B.C., is less likely.

“As to the second point, although we cannot go so far back in evidence of the power and civilisation of the Britons, there is an argument of some value to be drawn from the fine character of the coinage issued by British kings early in the second century B.C., and from the statement of Julius Cæsar ('De Bello Gallico,' vi., c. 14) that in the schools of the Druids the subjects taught included the movements of the stars, the size of the earth, and the nature of things (multa præterea de sideribus et eorum motu, de mundi magnitudine, de rerum natura, de deorum immortalium vi ac potestate disputant et juventuti tradunt).

"Studies of such a character seem quite consistent with, and to demand, a long antecedent period of civilisation."

Henry of Huntingdon is the first English writer to refer to Stonehenge, which he calls Stanenges. Geoffrey of Monmouth (1138) and Giraldus Cambrensis come next.

In 1771, Dr. John Smith, in a work entitled "Choir Gawr, the Grand Orrery of the Ancient Druids, called

p. 53

[paragraph continues] Stonehenge, Astronomically Explained, and, proved to be a Temple for Observing the, Motions of the Heavenly Bodies," wrote as follows:—

"From many and repeated visits, I conceived it to be an astronomical temple; and from what I could recollect to have read of it, no author had as yet investigated its uses. Without, an instrument or any assistance whatever, but White's 'Ephemeris,' I began my survey. I suspected the stone called The Friar's Heel to be the index that would disclose the uses of this structure; not was I deceived. This stone stands in a right line with the centre of the temple, pointing to the north-east. I first drew a circle round the vallum of the ditch and divided it into 360 equal parts; and then a right line through, the body of the temple to the Friar's Heel; at the intersection of these lines I reckoned the sun's greatest amplitude at the summer solstice, in this latitude, to be about 60 degrees, and fixed the eastern points accordingly. Pursuing this plan, I soon discovered the uses of all the detached stones, as well as those that formed the body of the temple."

With regard to this "Choir Gawr," translated Chorea Gigantum, Leland's opinion, is quoted,(Long, p. 51) that we should read Choir vawr, the equivalent of which is Chorea nobilis or magna. 1

In spite of Inigo Jones's (1600) dictum that Stonehenge was of Roman origin, Stukeley came to the conclusion in 1723 that the Druids were responsible for


p. 54

its building; and Halley, who visited it in 1720—probably with Stukeley—concluded from the weathering of the stones that it was at least 3000 years old; if he only had taken his theodolite with him, how much his interest in the monument would have been increased!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes
35:1 See especially Nature, July 2, 1891 p. 201.

35:2 Gardner, Paisley and London.

37:1 "The Prehistoric Stone Monuments of the British Isles—Cornwall."

39:1 "The French Stonehenge: An Account of the Principal Megalithic Remains in the Morbihan Archipelago." By T. Cato Worsfold, F.R.Hist.S., F.R.S.I. (London: Bemrose and Sons, Ltd.)

50:1 The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine: "Stonehenge and its Barrows." By William Long, M.A., F.S.A. 1876. The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine: "Stonehenge Bibliography Number." By W. Jerome Harrison. 1902.

53:1 Mr. Morien Morgan informs me that Cor y Gawres is correct, and means Choir of the Giantess: Cariadwen, the Welsh Neith, Nyth (Nydd).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report Spam   Logged
Ericka Bowman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 127



« Reply #34 on: January 12, 2009, 12:42:29 am »

p. 55

CHAPTER VI
GENERAL ARCHITECTURE OF STONEHENGE

ALTHOUGH I have before hinted that the astronomical use of the Egyptian temples and British circles was the same, there is at first sight a vast difference in the general plan of structure.

This has chiefly depended upon the fact that the riches and population of ancient Egypt were so great that that people could afford to build a temple to a particular star, or to the sun's position on any particular day of the year. The temple axis along the line pointing to the celestial body involved, then became the chief feature, and tens of years were spent in lengthening constricting and embellishing it.

From on end of an Egyptian. temple to the other we find the axis marked out by narrow apertures in the various pylons, and many walls with doors crossing the axis. There are seventeen or eighteen; of these apertures in the solar temple of Amen-Rā at Karnak, limiting the light which into the Holy of Holies or Sanctuary. This construction gives one a very definite impression that every part of the temple was built to subserve a special object, viz., to limit the sunlight which fell on its front into a narrow beam,

p. 56

Report Spam   Logged
Ericka Bowman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 127



« Reply #35 on: January 12, 2009, 12:43:33 am »



FIG. 12.—The axis of the Temple of Karnak, looking south-east, from outside the north-west pylon (from a photograph by the author).



and to carry it to the other extremity of the temple—into the sanctuary, where the high priest performed

p. 57

Report Spam   Logged
Ericka Bowman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 127



« Reply #36 on: January 12, 2009, 12:44:24 am »



FIG. 13.—Plan of the Temple of Ramses II. in the Memnonia at Thebes Lepsius), showing the pylon at the open end, the various doors along the axis, the sanctuary at the closed end, and the temple at right angles.



p. 58

his functions. The sanctuary was always blocked. There is no case in which the beam of light can pass absolutely through a temple (Figs. 12 and 13).

In Britain the case was different, there was neither skill nor workers sufficient to erect such stately piles, and as a consequence one structure had to do the work of several and it had to be done in the most economical way. Hence the circle with the observer at the centre and practically a temple axis in every direction among which could be chosen the chief directions required, each alignment being defined by stones, more or less distant, or openings in the circle itself.

Now for some particulars with regard to those parts of Stonehenge which lend themselves to the inquiry.

The main architecture of Stonehenge consisted of an external circle of about 100 feet in diameter, composed of thirty large upright stones, named sarsens, connected by continuous lintels. The upright stones formerly stood 14 feet above the surface of the ground. Then have nobs or tenons on the top which fit into mortice holes in the lintels. Within this peristyle there was originally an inner structure of ten still larger upright stones, arranged in the shape of a horseshoe, formed by five isolated trilithons which rose progressively from N.E. to S.W., the loftiest stones being 25 feet above the ground. About one-half of these uprights have fallen, and a still greater number of the imposts which they originally carried.

There is also another circle of smaller upright stones, respecting which the only point requiring notice now is that none of them would have interrupted the line of the axis of the avenue. The circular temple was also

p. 59

surrounded by the earthen bank, shown in Fig. 15, of about 300 feet in diameter, interrupted towards the

Report Spam   Logged
Ericka Bowman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 127



« Reply #37 on: January 12, 2009, 12:45:23 am »



FIG 14.—One of the remaining Trilithons at Stonehenge

Report Spam   Logged
Ericka Bowman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 127



« Reply #38 on: January 12, 2009, 12:46:08 am »

north-east by receiving into itself the banks forming an avenue before mentioned; which is about 50 feet acres.

p. 60

Within this avenue, no doubt an old via sacra, and looking north-east from the centre of the temple, at about 250 feet distance and considerably to the right hand of the axis, stands an isolated stone, which from a mediæval legend has been named the Friar's Heel.

Report Spam   Logged
Ericka Bowman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 127



« Reply #39 on: January 12, 2009, 12:49:17 am »



FIG. 15.—General plan; the outer circle, naos and avenue of Stonehenge. F.H. = Friar's Heel.
Report Spam   Logged
Ericka Bowman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 127



« Reply #40 on: January 12, 2009, 12:49:37 am »

The axis passes very nearly centrally through an ... columniation (so to call it) between two uprights ... the external circle and between the uprights of the northernmost? trilithon as it originally stood. Of this ... on the southernmost upright with the lintel ... fell in 1620, but the companion survived as the

p. 61

leaning stone which formed a conspicuous and picturesque object for many years, but happily now restored to its original more dignified and safer condition of verticality. The inclination of this stone, however, took place in the direction of the axis of the avenue, and as the distance between it and its original companion is known both by the analogy of the two perfect trilithons and by the measure of the mortice holes on the lintel they formerly supported, we obtain by bisection the distance, 11 inches, from its edge, of a point in the continuation of the central axis of the avenue and temple.

The banks which form the avenue have suffered much degradation. It appears from Sir Richard Colt Hoare's account that at the beginning of the last century they were distinguishable for a much greater distance than at present, but they are still discernible, especially on the northern side, for more than 1300 feet from the centre of the temple, and particularly the line of the bottom of the ditch from which the earth was taken to form the bank, and which runs parallel to it.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report Spam   Logged
Ericka Bowman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 127



« Reply #41 on: January 12, 2009, 12:52:22 am »

p. 62

CHAPTER VII
ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS AT STONEHENGE IN 1901 1

AN investigation was undertaken by Mr. Penrose and myself in the spring of 1901, as a sequel to analogous work in Egypt and Greece, with a view to determine whether the orientation theory could throw any light upon the date of the foundation of Stonehenge, concerning which authorities vary in their estimates by some thousands of years. Ours was not the first attempt to obtain the date of Stonehenge by means of astronomical considerations. In Mr. Godfrey Higgins’ work 2 he refers to a method of attack connected with precession. This furnished him with the date 4000 B.C.

More recently, Prof. W. M. Flinders Petrie, 3 whose plan of the stones is a valuable contribution to the study of Stonehenge, was led by his measures of the orientation to a date very greatly in the opposite direction, but, owing to an error in his application of the change of obliquity, clearly a mistaken one.

The chief astronomical evidence in favour of the




p. 63

solar temple theory lies in the fact that the "avenue," as it is called, formed by two ancient earthen banks, extends for a considerable distance from the structure, in the general direction of the sunrise at the summer solstice, precisely in the same way as in Egypt a long avenue of sphinxes indicates the principal outlook of a temple.

These earthen banks defining the avenue do not exist alone. As will be seen from the sketch plan (Fig. 15), there is a general common line of direction for the avenue and the principal axis of the structure; and the general design of the building, together with the position and shape of the naos, indicates a close connection of the whole temple structure with the direction of the avenue. There may have been other pylon and screen equivalents as in other ancient temples; which have disappeared, the object being to confine the illumination to a small part of the naos. There can be little doubt, also, that the temple was originally roofed in, and that the sun's first ray, suddenly shining into the darkness, formed a fundamental part of the cultus.

With regard to the question of the roof, however, the above suggestion, I now find, is not new, the view having been held by no less an authority than Dr. Thurnham, who apparently was led to it by the representations of the Scandinavian temples as covered and enclosed structures.

Since the actual observation of sunrise was doubtless made within the sanctuary itself, we seem justified in taking the orientation of the axis to be the same as that of the avenue, and, since in the present state of the S. W. trilithon the direction of the avenue can

p. 64

probably be determined with greater accuracy than that of the temple axis itself, the estimate of date must be based upon the orientation of the avenue. Further evidence will be given, however, to show that the direction of the axis of the temple, so far as it can now be determined, is sufficiently accordant with the direction of the avenue.

The orientation of this avenue, may be examined upon the same principles that have been found successful in the case of Greek and Egyptian temples—that is, on the assumption that Stonehenge was a solar temple, and that the greatest function took place at sunrise on the longest day of the year. This not only had a religious motive; it had also the economic value of marking officially and distinctly that time of the year and the beginning of an annual period.

It is, indeed, possible that the present structure may have had other capabilities, such as being connected with the May year, the equinoxes or the winter solstice; but it is with its uses at the summer solstice alone that we now deal.

There is a difference in treatment between the observations required for Stonehenge and those which are available for Greek or Egyptian solar temples. In the case of the latter, the effect of the precession of the equinoxes upon the stars, which as warning clock stars were almost invariably connected with those temples, offers the best measure of the dates of foundation; but in Britain, owing to the brightness of the dawn at the summer solstice, such a .star could not have been employed, so that we can rely only on the secular change of the obliquity as affecting the azimuth of the

p. 65

point of sunrise. This requires the measurements to be taken with very great precision, and as the azimuth of the place of sunrise varies with the latitude, and as a datum point on the horizon in a known position was also required, Colonel Johnston, R.E., the Director-General of the Ordnance Survey, was asked for and obligingly supplied the following particulars:

Centre of stone circle, Stonehenge
 ... ...
 Lat.
Long. W.
 51°
1
 10´
49
 42″
29
 
Centre of spire, Salisbury Cathedral
 ... ...
 Lat.
Long.
 51°
1
 3´
47
 52″
45
 

The real point was to determine the direction of the so-called avenue. Measurements taken from the line of the bottom of the ditch assisted materially those taken from the crown of the bank itself. With this help and by using the southern bank and ditch whenever it admitted of recognition a fair estimate of the central line could be arrived at. To verify this, two pegs were placed at points 140 feet apart along the line near the commencement of the avenue, and four others at distances averaging 100 feet apart nearer the further recognisable extremity, and their directions were measured with the theodolite, independently by two observers, the reference point being Salisbury Spire, of which the exact bearing had been communicated by Colonel Johnston.

This bearing was also measured locally by observations of the Sun and of Polaris, the mean of which differed by less than 20″ from the Ordnance value. The resulting observations gave for the axis of the avenue nearest the commencement an azimuth of 49° 38´ 48″, and for that of the more distant part

p. 66

[paragraph continues] 49° 32´ 54″. The mean of these two lines drawn from the central interval of the great trilithon, already referred to, passes between two of the sarsens of the exterior circle, which have an opening of about 4 feet, within a few inches of their middle point, the deviation being northwards. This may be considered to prove the close coincidence of the original axis of the temple with the direction of the avenue.

This value of the azimuth, the mean of which is 49° 35´ 51″, is confirmed by the information, also supplied from the Ordnance Survey, that from the centre of the temple, the bearing to the N.E. of the principal bench mark on a hill, about 8 miles distant, the bench mark being very near a well-known ancient fortified British encampment named Silbury or Sidbury, is 49° 34´ 18″; and that the same line continued through Stonehenge, to the south-west, strikes another ancient fortification, namely, Grovely Castle, about 6 miles distant, and at practically the same azimuth, viz., 49° 35´ 51″. For the above reasons 49° 34´ 18″ has been adopted for the azimuth of the avenue.

The summer solstice sunrise in 1901 was also watched for by Mr. Howard Payn on five successive mornings, viz., June 21 to 25, and was successfully observed on the last occasion. As soon as the Sun's limb was sufficiently above the horizon for its bisection to be well measured, it was found to be 8´ 40″ northwards of the peak of the Friar's Heel, which was used as the reference point; the altitude of the horizon being 35´ 48″. The azimuth of this peak from the point of observation had been previously ascertained to be 50° 39´ 5″, giving for that of the Sun when measured, 50°

p. 67

[paragraph continues] 30´ 25″; by calculation that of the Sun, with the limb 2´ above the horizon, should be 50° 30´ 54″. This observation was therefore completely in accordance with the results which had been obtained otherwise.

The time which would elapse between geometrical sunrise, that is, with the upper limb tangential with the horizon, and that which is here supposed, would be about 17 seconds, and the difference of azimuth would be 3´ 15″.

The remaining point was to find what value should be given to the Sun's declination when it appeared showing itself 2´ above the horizon, the azimuth being 49° 34'´ 18″.

The data obtained for the determination of the required epoch were as follows:—

(1.) The elevation of the local horizon at the sunrise point seen by a man standing between the uprights of the great trilithon (a distance of about 8000 feet) is about 35´ 30″, and 2´ additional for Sun's upper limb makes 37´ 30″.

(2.) - Refraction + parallax, 27´ 20″.

(3.) Sun's semi-diameter, allowance being made for greater eccentricity than at present, 15´ 45″.

(4.) Sun's azimuth, 49° 34´ 18″, and N. latitude, 51° 10´ 42″.

From the above data the Sun's declination works out 23° 54´ 30″ N., and by Stockwell's tables of the obliquity, which are based upon modern determinations of the elements of the solar system, 1 the date is found to be 1680 B.C.

It is to be understood that on account of the slight uncertainty as to the original line of observation and the


p. 68

very slow rate of change in the obliquity of the ecliptic, the date thus derived may possibly be in error by 200 years more or less; this gives us a date of construction lying between say 1900 and 1500 B.C.

In this investigation the so-called Friar's Heel was used only as a convenient point for reference and verification in measurement, and no theory was formed as to its purpose. It is placed at some distance, as before mentioned, to the south of the axis of the avenue, so that at the date arrived at for the **** of the temple the Sun must have completely risen before it was vertically over the summit of the stone. It may be remarked, further, that more than 500 years must yet elapse before such a coincidence can take place at the beginning of sunrise.

In an Appendix certain details of the observations are given.

In the next chapter I propose to show that an independent archæological inquiry carried out, in a most complete and admirable way, just after Mr. Penrose and myself had obtained our conclusion, entirely corroborates the date at which we had arrived.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes
62:1 This chapter and the end of the previous one are mainly based the paper communicated by Mr. Penrose and myself to the Royal Society (see Proceedings, Royal Society, vol. 69, p. 137 et seq.

62:2 The Celtic Druids. 4to. London. 1827.

62:3 Stonehenge, &c. 1880.

67:1 Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, vol. xviii. No. 232, table 9. Washington. 1873. For curve, see page 130.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report Spam   Logged
Ericka Bowman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 127



« Reply #42 on: January 12, 2009, 12:53:38 am »

p. 69

CHAPTER VIII
ARCHEOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS AT STONEHENGE, 1901

SOON after Mr. Penrose and myself had made our astronomical survey of Stonehenge in 1901, some archæological results of the highest importance were obtained by Professor Gowland. The operations which secured them were designed and carried out in order to re-erect the leaning stone which threatened to fall, a piece of work recommended to Sir Edmund Antrobus by the Society of Antiquaries of London and other learned bodies, and conducted at his desire and expense.

They were necessarily on a large scale, for the great monolith, "the leaning stone," is the largest in England, the Rudston monolith excepted. It stood behind the altar stone, over which it leant at an angle of 65 degrees, resting at one point against a small stone of sycnite. Halfway up it had a fracture one-third across it; the weight of stone above this fracture was a dangerous strain on it, so that both powerful machinery and great care and precautions had to be used. Professor Gowland was charged by the Society of Antiquaries with the conduct of the excavations necessary in the work. The engineering operations were planned by Mr. Carruthers, and Mr. Detmar Blow was responsible for the local superintendence.

Report Spam   Logged
Ericka Bowman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 127



« Reply #43 on: January 12, 2009, 12:54:45 am »



FIG. 16.—The arrangements for raising the stone, looking north-east.



p. 71

Report Spam   Logged
Ericka Bowman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 127



« Reply #44 on: January 12, 2009, 12:55:41 am »



FIG. 17.—The cradle and supports, looking west.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum | Buy traffic for your forum/website
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy