"Chris B" <nom### [at] nomailcom> schreef in bericht 
news:4a5e0a2f$1@news.povray.org...
> 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/
>
> Pure conjecture of course, but it makes a pretty picture. Even if the 
> woodlands were never quite that close to the stones it seems likely to me 
> that there would have still been some nearby woodlands and that the 
> landscape wouldn't have been anywhere near as devoid of plant life as it 
> is today.

Interesting image, but wrong/anachronistic in several ways. Like you say, 
the woods probably did not come up so close to the stones as suggested here, 
not even after the site was "abandoned", a few hundred years only after 
completion. Secondly, the forest shown looks too much like a modern 
"managed" forest. The original woods were more dense and tangled with 
underbrush imo. Before clearing of course. Still, a nice composition with a 
nice mood.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message