h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A2523188 - Stonehenge - post 41

"The Prescelly Mountains of North Pembrokeshire" I think it was agreed earlier in this thread that the spelling was Preseli.

The section on what it was built of has some technical terms in it that I don't recognise. Would it be possible to find some links to explain these? I realise you probably don't know what they are either, but it would be nice if us laymen could understand. I can look for some later, if you would like.

"It's supposed that they used a combination of river-barging and dragging overland using rollers to move these 'Bluestones' the two hundred plus miles to Salisbury Plain,"

As this was queried in this thread, but I found this "It is thought these stones, some weighing 4 tonnes each were dragged on rollers and sledges to the headwaters on Milford Haven and then loaded onto rafts." On a couple of websites, which seem 'official', it's difficult to tell though. That seems to confirm what this entry states.

BigAl, you mention that someone tried this, don't suppose you remember any more info on that? It could be added as a link if so.

I've got to go out now, but I'll check the rest later.

Annie, are you going to restructure this entry, as I suggested in posing 17, or are you going to leave it basically the shape it is now? Please let us know. If you are not restructuring, then I have a number of suggestions for improvement of the entry.

A few geological odds and sods that might help the "what it's made of section":

Ordovician Period - middle part of the Early Palaeozoic Era, from 495 - 443 million years ago.

Dolerite, also known as diabase, (of which the "bluestones" are one type) is an intrusive igneous rock which typically includes olivine, augite and plagioclase feldspar, while hornblende, ilmenite, apatite and biotite are their commonest accessory ingredients.

(Olivene: a usually colored olive-green iron-magnesium silicate mineral

Augite: A calcium sodium magnesium iron aluminium silicate, dark-green to black pyroxene mineral.

Plagioclase feldspars are mixtures of sodium and calcium aluminum silicates, commonly gray/darlk coloured, and range between two endmembers: the sodic feldspar endmember albite and the calcic feldspar endmember anorthite - but that's probably too involved for this entry! Plus this is stuff I'm remebering from uni, woiuld have to dig out Deer, Howie and Zussman for more! )

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

Plus according to a couple of sites, there are stones of more than one origin used in Stonehenge:
"Then began a new bigger, even better Stonehenge, the one that we know today- this was approximately 4,300 years ago, about 2,300 BC, the third and final stage of what we see now.
The bluestones were dug up and rearranged and this time even bigger stones were brought in from the Marlborough Downs, 20 miles (32 kms). These giant sandstones or Sarsen stones, as they are now called were hammered to size using balls of stone known as ‘mauls'"
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.881

It's probably worth mentioning that Stonehenge as we see it today actually dates from the early 20th century when it was substantially rebuilt and some of the stones set in concrete (unless of course you already have mentioned it and I somehow missed it). Unfortunately I'm at work so I can't get any better info than that at the moment.

Also I'm not sure about the validity of hte Researcher comments... at best they look like people joking around, and at worst they look like the kind of ill-informed speculation that plagues serious archaeology.
Incidentally the best one I've heard is that proof that Stonehenge was constructed by aliens comes from the fact that if you do the appropiate calculations on the main circle you get pi, and the ancient Britons had no knowledge of pi as a number. D'oh.

Suggest away, I don't think I can spare the time for a restructure.

No need to apologise! You can't help being busy.

'BigAl, you mention that someone tried this, don't suppose you remember any more info on that? It could be added as a link if so.'

There was a TV programme of this reconstruction. Can't remember which channel, but I have it on video tape. I'll look it out and let you know
They showed pretty conclusively that the stones were far too heavy for tree-trunk rollers to work; it had to be done by tragging along greased 'tramlines' made from planks.

'Plus according to a couple of sites, there are stones of more than one origin used in Stonehenge'

Yes, it appears that some are (spotted) dolerite and others are rhyolite - both found on Carn Menyn.

There's something about the tone of this entry that doesn't sit very well - obviously I don't know who wrote which bit, but I'm wondering if perhaps you shouldn't do what I did for the Great Fire of London entry. I wrote the damn thing myself, then credited anyone who'd said something I'd put into the entry.

I did it that way because there wasn't enough info in the conversations to create an entry, so really it had to be done this way. This one clearly has a lot of content, but it just seems a bit ... off.

For instance this bit :the ancient Brits could boast having the world's largest stone calendar

How would the ancient brits have known that theirs was the biggest?

This bit: The final manifestation of the temple is dominated by the gargantuan sarsens of the interlopers, though they also redeployed about half of the original complement of bluestones as part of the lesser circles and the horseshoe formation

Waaaay too many big words. Whoever wrote that perhaps should be writing for an encyclopedia rather than a Guide.

I hate to be so negative about it, but I am thinking that it's the content other people have contributed that isn't quite right, rather than any work that you've done Annie. I'm also wondering if it should be more than one entry - what is Stonehenge, and what was it used for - separate them out a bit.

I had absolutely no idea it hadn't all been put together in one go, so that least that's one positive thing I can say - I've learnt something.

You're only saying what I've been saying all along, Naim. But I haven't been making any impression.

'I'm also wondering if it should be more than one entry...'

Well, there's also this Unedited Entry on the 'Construction of Stonehenge' submitted by Watermusic last April

A2483840

She should really be encouraged to polish this and get it nto the EG

Putting these entries together is much more work than writing one from sratch in my experience, so after putting one together I don't blame Annie for being reluctant to take on yet more large amounts of work with it.

But the huge long words do make it hard to read. I blame whoever wrote those.

Have you thought about trying to restructure some parts, and posting them here, so Annie can paste the entry? It might kick start something, leading by example. Sorry if that's cheeky...

Watermusic's entry is much easier to read. Who *did* use all these long words.

You could try checking the posts at the entry itself, they're all still there.

I did hear you Gnomon, I just haven't had the time to do a complete rewrite, and I'm beginning to doubt I ever will. If enough people can write a small section each, I'll gladly paste in their sections if you will tell me exactly what to remove, because I don't understand those long words either.

This is my first attempt at putting together an entry from a previous topic of the day and as it's such a disaster I can only concede defeat and pass it over. I just can't do this subject justice and it deserves better.

Well I think you've ben doing a grand job It's a HUGE project and perhaps there IS a little too much for just one Entry (that's a nice way of saying perhpas you've bitten off more than you can chew ).

Have you ever thought of dividing it into 5 seperate Entries and amongst a mix of Researchers and putting it through the Uni? (plugging the Uni like there's no tomorrow...)

You could divide it into perhaps the following;

1. Stonehenge - the Monument
2. Stonehenge - the Legends
3. Stonehenge - the Theories
4. Stonehenge - a History

and the 5th Entry could be WaterMusics piece.

5. Stonehenge - How It Was Made

Not necessarily in that order, but it might be a good way of dividing the work load and getting a better 'structure' (I'm sure there's a terrible pun there somewhere, but I'll leave it be )

Just an idea

MJ

I myself like it as one entry. As to the big words perhaps you could consult dictionary.com or some thesaurus. I myself have a software
on my hard drive that will connect me to dictionary.com and after reading about the word megalithic I thought up this phrase-
"Stonehenge is the ruin of a very large circle." also rather than using the exact words from a source why not paraphrase like saying
Those who ran a nearby airfield wanted the stones removed because they thought Stonehenge might pose a danger to low-flying planes.
I think that would be less intimidating than saying aerodrome and
"constituted a dangerous hazard"

then there is the following which has nothing to say about stonehenge but much to say about peer review
http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/prose/aesop63.htm
and has the moral as aesop said
"please all,and you will please none"
you alone can decide how much you want to compromise the tone in order to make it into the edited guide.

I don't mean to be critical, Annie. I know that it's a big subject and that you've done your best, particularly since you are busy writing a load of other entries as well.

I've no objection to re-writing sections of the Stonehenge entry, but there are some bits I just don't understand so I won't be able to do much about them.

I've actually been through it, Gnomon, and chopped out a great deal that I personally thought was rubbish (won't mention it here for obvious reasons) I've left all the contributing researchers, so they all get an email if it's ever edited. I left the Sacred Spirals section because it's quoted/written from a book, but maybe that's a mistake, as you said "Where are they?" and I think it's a more mystical thing, which we don't need in the entry but someone else asked for the mystic stuff to be left in! (non-mystics can skip over that section)

I would divide it up into 5 parts and put it through the Uni MJ, but I honestly haven't got the time to make that kind of commitment. And then someone else likes it as one entry

My RL is pretty demanding and harrowing as you probably all know, and there's worse to come, so I really can't take on board anything else. I'm not actually writing at the moment Gnomon, just nursing through my other PR entries, I won't be writing more until, well, for a while.


Thanks for all the help everyone!much appreciated.