Google Ngram -- another bit of fun

 This is very jolly -- I was looking at Mike Pitts's blog, and came across this thing called Google Ngram.  Google has now digitized thousands (millions?) of books, and has the ability to instantly scan through all those pages so as to pick up a frequency of mentions of particular words or groups of words.  The site is here:

http://books.google.com/ngrams

Just for fun, I entered in "spotted dolerite", "bluestones" and "Preseli" to see what came up.  The resulting graph is above -- click to enlarge.

I was interested to see that the word "bluestones" has been around for a long time, and appeared a lot in print around 1880 and 1900-1905.  But there does not appear to be any correlation with the word "Preseli" until 1922-23, which of course was the time when HH Thomas's ideas suddenly hit the world of archaeology.  And since the 1950's the word "bluestones" becomes much more popular -- the influence of Richard Atkinson must have been very great in this regard.

It's also interesting that there was a lapse of interest in these words "bluestones" and "spotted dolerite" in the 1990's, with things picking up again in the present century.  (There is not much data in the last few years, because Google has been having all sorts of copyright disputes with publishers, over digitisation......)

All very interesting and frivolous......

Adam Stanford's Gigapan of Rhosyfelin

There is now a fantastic high-definition "panorama" of the rock face at Craig Rhosyfelin, made by Adam Stanford and using Gigapan technology.  Take a look at it here:

 http://www.gigapan.com/gigapans/118443

You can look at the whole face exposed during the 2012 dig, and you can also zoom in for high-definition images of the bedrock, the clutter of broken rock debris, and the "abandoned orthostat" which MPP thinks was intended for Stonehenge but which never quite made it.......

It all looks entirely natural to me, although of course the pit on the extreme left-hand edge of the photo is more convincing as a man-made feature.

If you sign up for a free account with Gigacam, you can take snapshots too.  Unfortunately, they are not of very high definition, but you can also use your own "snapshot facility" on your own computer if you want images of better quality.

Above is a snapshot of the side of the "orthostat" -- where some of the marks are thought to have been man-made.  The horizontal gouges and scratches appear entirely natural to me -- but it may be that the archaeologists are homing in on the two very faint vertical marks which are almost parallel.  If you look very carefully -- and enlarge the photo by clicking on it -- you can see one mark in the centre of the photo and another to the left of it.

Not much to go on -- if I was wanting to argue that this is a quarry site, I would want rather better evidence than that....  so let's see what MPP and the boys and girls come up with.

The immaculate conception at Maryhill

Lately we have been having some fun swapping info about various aspects of the stone markings (natural or man-made) on the sarsens and bluestones at Stonehenge, and Lloyd has mentioned the impressive monument at Maryhill in the Washington, USA -- built as a memorial to the dead of World War 1.  There's also a museum there, and it's used a lot by educational groups and students.

One can only approve of all that, and Lloyd asks whether it might be an idea for students to follow this blog.  They will be very welcome to do so --  but they need to be prepared to confront the view that the "immaculate Stonehenge" as portrayed in the reconstruction -- and presumably taught as "fact" by those who are teachers as well as students -- probably never existed.  It seems to me that more and more people (including archaeologists working for English heritage) are coming to the view that Stonehenge was NEVER completed.  Too many gaps, too many stones missing, too much indecision.  Much of the evidence points this way.

My thoughts are in the lecture I gave to the "Do Lectures" a couple of years ago  -- a few things have changed since then, but nothing substantial.
http://beta.thedolectures.co.uk/lectures/dispelling-the-stonehenge-myth/

There is also my YouTube video, which new users of this blog might like to have a look at.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-f4c3F9iEaY&feature=channel&list=UL

The Avenue Banks

Another comment from Lloyd, this time relating to the Avenue embankments (highly exaggerated in the "photo" above).

Regarding the comments made by Geocur, I accept all shapes are in the eye of the holder, unless an alternative explanation could be given. For example, Stone 059a has two very distinct parallel ribs, as shown in the attached photograph. Could this be a representation of ‘The Avenue’ as shown in the photograph? Although no meanings have yet been found for shapes on stones, surely this does not mean that none exist?

I thought that the general assumption was that this was a tongue-and-groove arrangement, but that's sheer speculation too.....

Sarsen faces - stone 54

From Lloyd:

I thank Terence Meaden for his comments; this feature on the W side of Stone 054 has been incorporated in the model. When having to think what this face would have looked like when building the original Stonehenge, I referred to the carvings found on Easter Island and used these as a guide.

Stone 53

Lloyd says:
I thank Timothy Daw for his comments and I acknowledge and understand what he says however, I find it is difficult to relate these comments to the external SW side of Stone 053. Rather than having a random shape produced by stone dressing, it looks as though it is  more 'purposeful' in its design, and it is to this that I am seeking an explanation.


Actually Lloyd, you can contribute directly to the blog discussion if you want. 

Carvings on the sarsens

I have received a message from Lloyd Matthews, relating to the carvings on the Stonehenge sarsens.  The letter is below, with Lloyd's permission.  Can anybody help please?
Thanks
Brian
---------------------------

I spent five years researching and studying Stonehenge so I could build an exact scale model of how it now stands, and then to build a second model as to how it might have looked when it had been completed. Should you like to see photographs I can forward them to you. 

This model was built 1:158 scale and is now on display at the Maryhill Museum, Washington http://www.maryhillmuseum.org/Visit/Do/Stonehenge/stonehengeDetail.html.

During the building of the model I recorded shapes on the stones that appeared to have been carved when built, yet cannot find any information on this subject.

English Heritage have recently published a report of a Laser Scan carried out on Stonehenge which, was also featured in Nov/Dec British Archeology. I had hoped this would give me answers, but on Stone 059a the report attribute the parallel ridges to stone dressing. No mention was made of Stone 053 external SW face, or Stone 052 external SE face.

The Maryhill Museum has challenged me to see if I could find answers to these questions.

Could you recommend any online academic sources, I might research concerning stone carvings. Currently I am finding much of the information cannot be accessed unless a payment is made.