No abstract

In a previous paper! we have given details of an accurate survey of the monument at Stonehenge and shown how the sarsen circle and the trilithons were set out. We also discussed the possibility that Stonehenge was the central point of a solar and lunar observatory. On a subsequent visit we examined in detail (as far as crops permitted) some of the postulated sight lines. We were using the same equipment as before, namely a Longines electronic watch, a Tavistock theodolite and other surveying gear. In only one detail do we wish to retract the views expressed in our previous paper, and that concerns the stone at Fargo Plantation. This is in fact a boundary stone and so presumably modern, but, as will be seen, this hardly affects any conclusion which may be drawn concerning the sight line which passes through this point.

No abstract

No abstract

An authoritative description of the site at Avebury will be found in the volume Windmill Hill and Avebury prepared by Dr I. S. Smith to record the excavations and restorations carried out by Alexander Keiller and his associates.' Miss Smith deals not only with the ring and the internal constructions but with the bank and ditch and also with the West Kennet Avenue. The main ring itself probably had a perimeter of 3545ft and is estimated to have had originally 98 stones. Some of these are very large, but in 1936there were only nine upright and another ten lying fallen. The remainder had been destroyed or buried by the villagers. Stukeley has described the methods used for the destruction and indicates that the villagers seemed to take a fiendish delight in breaking up the monument.> The destruction would have made it quite impossible to discover the original design were it not for the fact that the stones had been socketed into the underlying chalk. Keiller and his associates were thus able by excavation to find approximately the original positions of some of the stones. His success in pinpointing each exact position depended on the size of the hole in the chalk which in some cases had been enlarged by subsequent disturbances. For example, when the villagers felled a stone they dug out one side of the foundation and toppled the stone across a suitably excavated burning pit in which a fire was lit to destroy the stone. Keiller and his associates have excavated most of the western side of the ring and placed concrete plinths in what they considered to be the original stone positions. But it will be understood from what has been said above that these plinths and indeed also the re-erected stones cannot always have been accurately placed in the original positions and may in some cases have been misplaced by several feet. The eastern side of the ring has not yet been excavated, but a good indication of its position is given by the undisturbed stone no. 68, by two fallen stones and by some burning pits.In the frontispiece to Megalithic sites in Britain a small scale reproduction of a survey of the ring is shown, probably correct to about ±l foot." Superimposed on the above plan is an accurate drawing of the arrangement to which we believe the geometry was set out. Essentially this is based on a 3,4,5 triangle in units of 25 Megalithic yards (my) or to Megalithic rods.Professor Kendall in his analysis of the data on circles and rings given in Megalithic sites in Britain separated the result obtained for the value of the Megalithic yard in Scotland from that obtained in England.s His conclusion was that the Scottish data gave a more convincing value. Because of its complex geometry, Avebury was not included in the English data; by 1967 Stonehenge had not been surveyed by us, nor had Brogar ring been surveyed and analysed for inclusion in the Scottish data.We consider that because of its size and the fact that we know its geometry, Avebury provides the best opportunity for determining, from a single site in England, the val...