55 replies to this topic

[beatles]

hi, i have been visiting your forum for a bit and would like to introduce myself and present something for you to consider.  it is a new and very unusual engineering idea for the ancient use of stonehenge.  not the usual new age thing.
please visit my website,    http://www.granaryatstonehenge.orgVisit My Website for more info.   and please post your reactions both positive and negative............  this is an entirely new theory and, does not negate other theories of stonehenge  like astronomical alignment or religious use but, takes it to a new level.
thank you very much,  clyde hollifield

[Pete G]

Welcome Clyde,
I saw your website a few weeks ago and I'm afraid I am not a convert.
Have you ever visited Stonehenge in person?

The site is halfway down a hill slope so not the best sited for a windmill.
Some of the stones of the outer circle are barely 6 inches in the ground while others are several feet to maintain an even circle of lintels.
Any pressure on these from the center and it would collapse.
Early photos show the stones all skewed and twisted and proped up with wooden supports.
Many of the outer stones have collapsed in the past and the restoration projects of the 1950's and 60's picked them up and grounded them in concrete.
Some of the stones on top the lintels have large holes in so would not be the best for grinding grain as these holes would simply fill up. (See Mindsteps to the Cosmos by Gerald S Hawkins)
If it was designed to be a grinding stone they would have chosen smoother stones or smoothed them manualy as can be seen elsewhere on the upright stones.

Quern stones have been found all around the Stonehenge landscape. These would have not been needed if Stonehenge did as you say.

Excavations in the center of the stones have shown no sign of fallen grains.
Some would have been presevered in the packing clay around the base of the deepest stones.

If you want the soil tested then put the project forward to English Heritage and supply the funds and you may get some soil analysis via core sampling although I doubt EH would take the idea seriously.
Best wishes,
PeteG

[beatles]

Pete G, on 25 March 2008, 16:18, said:

Welcome Clyde,
I saw your website a few weeks ago and I'm afraid I am not a convert.
Have you ever visited Stonehenge in person?

The site is halfway down a hill slope so not the best sited for a windmill.
Some of the stones of the outer circle are barely 6 inches in the ground while others are several feet to maintain an even circle of lintels.
Any pressure on these from the center and it would collapse.
Early photos show the stones all skewed and twisted and proped up with wooden supports.
Many of the outer stones have collapsed in the past and the restoration projects of the 1950's and 60's picked them up and grounded them in concrete.
Some of the stones on top the lintels have large holes in so would not be the best for grinding grain as these holes would simply fill up. (See Mindsteps to the Cosmos by Gerald S Hawkins)
If it was designed to be a grinding stone they would have chosen smoother stones or smoothed them manualy as can be seen elsewhere on the upright stones.

Quern stones have been found all around the Stonehenge landscape. These would have not been needed if Stonehenge did as you say.

Excavations in the center of the stones have shown no sign of fallen grains.
Some would have been presevered in the packing clay around the base of the deepest stones.

If you want the soil tested then put the project forward to English Heritage and supply the funds and you may get some soil analysis via core sampling although I doubt EH would take the idea seriously.
Best wishes,
PeteG

peteg

thanks for your reply.  i am aware of the different depths of the sarsen uprights making the sarsen lintels level.  this would have been needed if stonehenge was a mill.   we are seeing stonehenge as a 3,000 year old ruin and of course many stones have fallen and weathered.  
the grinding querns found in the area are of hard sandstone just like the sarsen circle.  this shows that early man used this type of stone to grind grain.   the mill at stonehenge did not grind grain to flour.  it rolled and cracked the grain and removed the chaff.  spelt and emmer wheat were very hard grains with tightly bound husks.  they were hard to mill.   hand querns would still have been needed to make flour.  flour was only needed to make bread.  rolled and cracked grain was good for porridge and beer making.  

the top of the sarsen ring is the most weathered stones at the site because they are flat and would have held freezing water unlike the vertical ones.   i propose that they were flat when stonehenge III was built.

as for soil tests,  i am not sure that the correct test has yet been devised to test for grain residue (not actual intact grains).  and it is a nightmare to get permission to test for anything at stonehenge.....  and you are correct EH would not take the theory seriously.   it will take time for this theory like any other to gain acceptance and to be tested.

as for pressure on the sarsen ring, the weight of the revolving carousel was straight down on the stones.  

i appreciate your wise comments and thanks for visiting the website http://www.granaryatstonehenge.org
clyde

[Pete G]

Hi Clyde,
thanks for the response.
Have you ever been there? In Person?

I live nearby and visit the site often.
I am also photographing the ongoing Stonehenge Riverside Project excavations which have been running for several years and still have 7 years left to run.
It is not beyond the research project to test soil inside the circle at some point during the project.

I have talked to several qualified archaeologists about your theory and sadly, so far, not one of them has found a single piece of evidence that points in the direction of your theory.

Many against.
A stone lintel circle type millstone would be much better sited on the ground.
There is no reason at all to raise them up to achieve the type of milling that you are suggesting, ie rough oats and meal.

The reason Quern stones are sarsen is that it is the only type of stone around here.
Why drag Bluestones so far for such a mundane task as milling?
I'm afraid there are many more questions for you to overcome before you make any real converts in serious archaeology.
try posting your theory on the British Archaeology mailing list BritArch
PeteG

[beatles]

Pete G, on 25 March 2008, 18:54, said:

Hi Clyde,
thanks for the response.
Have you ever been there? In Person?

I live nearby and visit the site often.
I am also photographing the ongoing Stonehenge Riverside Project excavations which have been running for several years and still have 7 years left to run.
It is not beyond the research project to test soil inside the circle at some point during the project.

I have talked to several qualified archaeologists about your theory and sadly, so far, not one of them has found a single piece of evidence that points in the direction of your theory.

Many against.
A stone lintel circle type millstone would be much better sited on the ground.
There is no reason at all to raise them up to achieve the type of milling that you are suggesting, ie rough oats and meal.

The reason Quern stones are sarsen is that it is the only type of stone around here.
Why drag Bluestones so far for such a mundane task as milling?
I'm afraid there are many more questions for you to overcome before you make any real converts in serious archaeology.
try posting your theory on the British Archaeology mailing list BritArch
PeteG

peteg.

thanks again.  i envy you being able to see and work near stonehenge.   No, i have never been to stonehenge.  and i am sure you are going to say , "how can i know anything about it".    i have never been to mars but i know its weight, orbit, desity, atmosphere,etc....    i am indebted to all the archaeologists who have done research at stonehenge for the facts that they provide.         appalachia is my home.

the theory on my website,  http://www.granaryatstonehenge.org  , and the FAQ page gives a good description of why the sarsen circle needed to be elevated in order for the mill to function.
the short answer is , height was need in order to wind winnow the grain and to keep the working parts of the mill overhead so men could work inside.  the same reason that the sails on ships are not at deck level.

as for evidence on the ground at stonehenge that supports my theory.  it is of an engineering nature not archaeological. the over built sarsen joints, the choice of sarsen, the height of the ring, the location, the level circular nature of the ring, and much more.     i would also point out with respect that there is not a single piece of archaeological evidence at stonehenge to prove that it was a religious site.   no artifact, no historical writing, no ceremonial fire, etc.     your argument cuts both ways here.

i would ask you to indeed test the deep chalk layer under stonehenge for wheat residue and compare it to the levels in the surrounding countryside.   if there is a concentration within stonehenge, then grain was concentrated there or worked there.  the bottom line is that my theory may just be provable (or disprovable) by soil tests where as no other theory can so easily be tested.    i hope that someday the necessary test will be conducted.   on that day i have a 50/50 chance of being proved right.

thank you so much for the link to britarch.    you can find a short piece about my theory in the nov. dec. 2006 issue of british archaeology mag.

no new theory is easily accepted.  people are still hotly contesting darwin's theory of natural selection a hundred years after it was proposed.   my theory will take time to gain acceptance.  but unlike darwin's ,mine can be proved by soil tests. it can also be demonstrated by a working mechanical model.  what other theory can produce a model.  i know of only one other and it is the astronomical alignment theory.

the bluestones were brought to stonehenge long before it was made into a mechanical mill in stage III.   please take a look at the complete thesis and it will answer many of your questions.

again i envy your  being near to stonehenge.   and i admire the interesting work that you do.

thanks for your input
clyde

[Pete G]

Hi Clyde,
I remember your letter to BA.
BA 91 Dec 2006
The editor Mike Pitts doesn't think your theory holds water.
When you say
"Old stories of sound coming from Stonehenge may be folk memories "
can you give a source for these stories as I have not heard of them and I have read a lot about Stonehenge.
Do post your ideas onto BritArch, I would like to know what John Wood and others have to say about it.

I have read your thesis and it doesn't convince me.
Why is the site not at the top of the hill?
PeteG

[beatles]

Pete G, on 26 March 2008, 10:13, said:

Hi Clyde,
I remember your letter to BA.
BA 91 Dec 2006
The editor Mike Pitts doesn't think your theory holds water.
When you say
"Old stories of sound coming from Stonehenge may be folk memories "
can you give a source for these stories as I have not heard of them and I have read a lot about Stonehenge.
Do post your ideas onto BritArch, I would like to know what John Wood and others have to say about it.

I have read your thesis and it doesn't convince me.
Why is the site not at the top of the hill?
PeteG

peteg
you are absolutely right, mike pitts certainly did not think much of it.  but, i felt that i owed it to the british people to offer them the first crack at it...    mr. pitts was kind enough to write me a letter in which he described my theory as fantastical....   fantastical man, that mike pitts...   i will always save mike's letter because it was a classic snooty put down.  quite fantastical actually.   i loved it.

as for the folklore bits.   i have read that some of the stone circles are said to walk or move about.  i believe the knights men   are supposed to go down to the river to drink on midsummer's night.....   the thing about sound coming from stomehenge was told to me by an old friend in wales.  i do not know where he heard this........  he described it as humming, or singing.

i will take your advice and post onto britarch if i can..........i am sure it will receive a bit of the same reaction but i am prepared to defend it as long as people do not get angry......   every new theory has a steep hill to climb.     my plan at this point is to make people aware of the granary idea.  they must ultimately decide for themselves if it is fantastical.....   but as you no doubt know, it is not the most fantastical theory of stonehenge out there.   many people find it captivating especially when they see the scale model with all its detail turning in the wind.  and i think my theory will be around for sometime to come.  compared to some of the others, mine is at least based on sound engineering.

as for why stonehenge is not on the crest of the hill, i do no know.   would it not have also been placed on the top of the hill if it were for astronomical observation?    or as a temple?    i do not have all the answers but i do know that my theory fits well with what is known about the monument.

[Pete G]

good luck with your idea Clyde.
I have been wondering what the site would be like if the mill started to grind and the chaff started to fly around and then it rained!
The whole place would be covered in a glue like porridge!
PeteG

[beatles]

Pete G, on 26 March 2008, 18:24, said:

good luck with your idea Clyde.
I have been wondering what the site would be like if the mill started to grind and the chaff started to fly around and then it rained!
The whole place would be covered in a glue like porridge!
PeteG

peteg
very good point.  a look at the video at http://www.granaryatstonehenge.org will show you that the sails are very large in comparison to the lintel stones.   in the event of sudden rain, the sails could be lowered to completely cover the grain on sarsen circle.   glue like porridge,,Yuck....

even today agriculture is often spoiled by rain.   consider the farmer who cuts his hay only to have it rained on.....or the years of poor harvest due to excess rain....   this is a chance farmers must take......and remember the ancient  millers at stonehenge would have used their combined experience to not grind on rainy days just as a farmer today does not work his fiends in the rain.......

say, could you provide me with a link to john wood and/or britarch???   i would very much appreciate it.
clyde

[Pete G]

http://www.jiscmail....A...amp;D=1&O=D
For BritArch

I also suggest you contact the Stonehenge Riverside Project
http://www.shef.ac.u...enge/index.html
the director is Mike Parker-Pearson
E-Mail: M.Parker-Pearson@Sheffield.ac.uk
He is a friendly chap and I'm sure he would have a view on your ideas.
Others you might like to try are
Julian Richards
http://www.archaemedia.net/
E-Mail: julianrichards@archaemedia.net
and
Josh Pollard
http://www.bristol.a.../staff/pollard/
E-mail: Joshua.Pollard@bris.ac.uk

Good luck,
PeteG

[shiny]

There is a certain "Texas Tycoon" who has a great interest in Stonehenge. Maybe he could help you out.



I'm trying to think of others who like to think outside the box.

[Pete G]

shiny, on 27 March 2008, 14:35, said:

I'm trying to think of others who like to think outside the box.

There's The Megalithic Portal which has a forum where you can discuss such important matters as
"Did Bronze age man have digital cameras."

[beatles]

Pete G, on 27 March 2008, 15:51, said:

shiny, on 27 March 2008, 14:35, said:

I'm trying to think of others who like to think outside the box.

There's The Megalithic Portal which has a forum where you can discuss such important matters as
"Did Bronze age man have digital cameras."

old photos from those bronze age digital cameras is exactly how we know what the grain mill at stonehenge looked like.
clyde

[Pete G]

"old photos from those bronze age digital cameras is exactly how we know what the grain mill at stonehenge looked like.
clyde"

Ah I see. I thought this might all be a joke when I first read it.
It would have been better released on April fools day.

[shiny]

I get the feeling that I'm not being taken seriously.