I just noticed in this image of a "Pristine Stonehenge" from the recent BBC programme that the Altar Stone is shown here (in the shadow) as recumbent -- ready to be used for ritual slaughters and other nasty going-on.. I know Aubrey Burl always argued that it was meant to be recumbent and had never been set upright in a socket -- but others (like Tony Johnson) have insisted that it was simply the biggest of the bluestones, knocked over during a nasty sarsen accident.
I haven't kept up on this issue. What is the latest thinking?
4 comments:
What is the latest thinking?
Depends on the theory doesn't it.. there's no new evidence.
The Altar Stone was already recumbent when 55 fell on it.
This I discovered some years ago when building my 'pristine' model of Stonehenge.
Wishing to make a scale replica of Stone 80, I measured from plans, what I thought was its broken stump, still standing upright in the ground. However, the measurement of its section was seen to be abnormally thick. So something was wrong!
It was only after a trip to Swindon and the NMRC to examine Atkinson's photos did I learn that this was not its buried stump, but simply a piece that had broken off.
You probably would not believe the Cored Stump (80/96) evidence so here is just the summary. The Altar Stone (80) was originally erect in Stonehole 96 and the Heel Stone (96) was originally erect in Stonehole 97. In 586 BC the erect Altar Stone (80) was moved to centre Stonehenge and set recumbent. In AD 24 the erect Heel Stone (96) was moved from Stonehole 97 to Stonehole 96 and set erect, after a 1/4 clockwise rotation. Great Trilithon Stone (55) was still erect in the 1st century AD and recumbent Altar Stone (80) was not broken.
Post a Comment