|
 |
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message
news:web.4a5e196873084296a95afc190@news.povray.org...
> "Chris B" <nom### [at] nomail com> wrote:
>> In searching the Internet I came across an artists impression of what it
>> might have looked like if the area had still been forested when the
>> stones
>> were built:
>> http://www.gardenvisit.com/blog/2009/06/30/stonehenge-as-a-woodland-site/
>
> Beautiful picture, and an interesting thought. In such a setting, it would
> seem
> perfectly fitting that the stones were much better finished on the inside
> than
> on the outside. If stonehenge stood in the open, I'd have expected the
> outside
> to be considered about equally important as the inside.
>
Ah! Well I think it's difficult to be sure how well the stones were
originally finished.
They were knocked about a good bit when tipped over and there's no certainty
that the reconstructions from the early part of the last century even got
the stones in the right place, let alone the right way round. And people
have been chipping souvenirs off the stones to take home with them since
well before Roman times, so a lot of surface stone may have dissappeared
over the last 4000 years.
Chris B.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
