"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> "Doctor John" <joh### [at] homecom> schreef in bericht
> news:4a5b4383@news.povray.org...
> > Just starting work on placing stones for a Stonehenge model and using
> > most recent research which suggests that it had an open side. Sun
> > direction is that at sunset on mid-winter's day.
> > ATM the stones are textured superellipsoids but I will be using
> > isosurfaces for the completed model (see my post in p.general for a bit
> > of the isosuface code)
>
> An open side?? I missed that info apparently....

Seems like archeologists have been focused so much on complete circles that they
rather tried to explain the lack of stones in the southwestern quarter by either
the stones having been removed later (hum, shouldn't they find traces of
filled-up holes then?), or the work having been abandoned before completion -
instead of going for the equally plausible explanation that the architects were
bored with those old full circles and decided to leave it partly open on
purpose. After all, the inner set of stones isn't circular either, right? And I
find it striking that the "missing" stones are just at the opposite of the
entrance.

I guess close examination of the "corner stones" and associated lintels might
give hints. If the structure or dimensions differ significantly from the
average stones, that would suggest the opening to be intentional. Maybe they
have recent news there.

Post a reply to this message