"Chris B" <nom### [at] nomailcom> 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.

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
news:web.4a5e196873084296a95afc190@news.povray.org...
> "Chris B" <nom### [at] nomailcom> 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

Yes, that's more like it. Thank you, again.


"Chris B" <nom### [at] nomailcom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:4a5e0ce5@news.povray.org...
>
> "TC" <do-not-reply@i-do get-enough-spam-already-2498.com> wrote in message 
> news:4a5e0a0e$1@news.povray.org...
>> Thank you for the link. Quite interesting!
>>
>> Last time I was in Stonehenge was 16 years ago. Strange tricks memory 
>> plays us - I remembered the stones to be more dark-grey.
>>
>
> Is this more how you remember them?
> http://www.thelighthousewebsite.com/userimages/stonehenge.jpg
>
> I think you need a sunrise and some color filters on your camera to get 
> them looking orange.  :-)
>
> Chris B.

Post a reply to this message

"Chris B" <nom### [at] nomailcom> wrote:
> 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.

Well, stones tipping over have a tendency to leave their "foot end" at about the
same place where it originally stood, right?

So if half of the toppled stones' ends form a distinct shape, chances are that's
where they originally stood, so this is a way to identify which end of each
stone is the "foot end".

Now given that the stones are significantly wider than deep, most will have
toppled without turning.

Thus, if some stones lay outward from the suspected placement, chances are their
outer side ended up down in the ground. And if they lay inward instead, chances
are their inner side ended up buried.

So, if the stones tipped over outward show a better finish on the upper side,
while the stones tipped over inward show a better finish on the lower side,
this would be a clear indication how they were originally finished, as it rules
out any later manipulation as the cause of the differences in finish.

Post a reply to this message

"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

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
news:web.4a5e431673084296a95afc190@news.povray.org...
> "Chris B" <nom### [at] nomailcom> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Well, stones tipping over have a tendency to leave their "foot end" at 
> about the
> same place where it originally stood, right?
>

Ah!... but :-)

The people tipping them over were attempting to permanently destroy their 
religious symbolism or to cart stone away for building projects elsewhere. 
Somewhere I've got a picture of drawings from Victorian times and they're 
not all just layed out in a neat circle.

I read a piece yesterday that described an old standing stone just a few 
miles from Stonehenge. The archeologists were only made aware of it when the 
farmer was spotted by locals dragging it towards a dump where he was 
planning to bury it to get it out of the way of his farm machinery. The 
locals reported it, the council leapt in to stop him and made him drag it 
back to roughly where it was before. Until that time it wasn't even listed 
on the modern archeological records.

> Thus, if some stones lay outward from the suspected placement, chances are 
> their
> outer side ended up down in the ground. And if they lay inward instead, 
> chances
> are their inner side ended up buried.
>

Restorations in the past may have moved the stones because they weren't 
always interested in archeological authenticity. Most of this sort of work 
was done by businessmen wishing to present an imposing image to the tourists 
coming along the main roads from Salisbury and London. The guys with the 
crane in the photo from the 1930s  were probably most interested in getting 
the bits back down to earth without crushing their toes.


> So, if the stones tipped over outward show a better finish on the upper 
> side,
> while the stones tipped over inward show a better finish on the lower 
> side,
> this would be a clear indication how they were originally finished, as it 
> rules
> out any later manipulation as the cause of the differences in finish.
>

I suspect that, once a 30 ton stone was up in the air, turning on its cable, 
they were probably more focused on getting it to look good than to respect 
the original positions and orientations.

Some early archeologists may have had some influence during the more recent 
reconstructions. But we know that the Romans had a big tourist industry and 
the technology to move stones of that sort of size around, and I don't think 
there are any records of how they changed Stonehenge through the 10 
generations they were here. Likewise the masons of the middle ages and of 
the Victorian era both demonstrated the ability to move stone of  that sort 
of size and cpuld well have carted away stone for their buildings or may 
have rearranged the stones to suit tourists of their age.

Regards,
Chris B.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Doctor John <joh### [at] homecom> wrote:
>> All stones are now isosufaces (all different i.e No #declares). Lots of
>> work still to do.
> 
> Yup. For instance, you need much less ambient.
> 
> 
A few changes.
1. Adjustments to isosurfaces
2. Changed Lightsys parameters slightly
3. Changed ground fog

John
-- 
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'djrebirth_2.jpg' (120 KB)

Preview of image 'djrebirth_2.jpg'

Doctor John <joh### [at] homecom> wrote:
> A few changes.

Hm... still way too strong ambient on the stones. Or not enough on the ground.
In any case there's a mismatch there.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Doctor John <joh### [at] homecom> wrote:
>> A few changes.
> 
> Hm... still way too strong ambient on the stones. Or not enough on the ground.
> In any case there's a mismatch there.
> 
> 
I agree about the mismatch. There is no ambient or radiosity, I'm using
Lightsys for the lighting, sky and ground fog so I need to work on the
auxiliary fill-lights. I also need to work on the ground texture but
since I'm working on an isosurface to simulate the ground and some
nearby barrows that can wait.
In reply to the comment about habitation and woods etc: All in good
time, good things come to those who wait ;-)
Thanks all for the comments and encouragement

John
-- 
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> 
> That is very atmospheric John. Although I can’t help thinking that the stones
> look like large weetabixs.
> 

Can yer mither sew? ;-)

See adjusted image further down the thread

John
-- 
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei

Post a reply to this message