After closer review, I have determined that there is no leaning bluestone to be moved! what I have been looking at was a a trick of shadow, making the whole premise of this post BS. A shout goes out to commenter Akaen3sir for catching this one.
<p>
I previously posted a Blog regarding an c1860 photograph I was attempting to date, based on the placement of a fallen bluestone and was rewarded with a contact by David Corio. It turned out he has several stereo views of Stonehenge in his collection most importantly to this search is one signed and dated October 16 1871 titled Stonehenge – Near View From The West No 209 taken by G.W. Wilson Photographer Aberdeen, showing the stone in question clearly moved. This is now the earliest photo I have found, confirming my belief that it was moved sometime in the 196os.
Photo of Blue-stone before and after it was moved
The c1860 Culver photo clearly shows it before it was pushed off of the other rocks and the 1871 G.W.Wilson stereo view after.
At this point my memory has failed me. I distinctly remember reading about someone back in the 1860′s who using an iron bar moved this stone to reduce the chances of collapse. I think they were researching the Moss under it at the time. I can not remember where I read it, but I think it was during a scan of documents preserved by the Gutenberg project, about 10 years ago. Any help jogging my memory will be appreciated on this subject.
December 6, 2010 at 10:10 am |
It’s a trick of the light – the shadow falling on the back of the leaning Stone 56 and the prone Stone 55 is cast by Stone 16 and it makes it look as if there’s an extra stone leaning against the back of 56 when there isn’t.
December 16, 2010 at 12:59 pm |
Point taken, I will just refer to this picture as the un-numbered stone stack
The stone I am interested in is leaning and has a great amount of moss under it.
a closeup from the 1860 photo clearly shows it.Culver Closeup
December 16, 2010 at 1:35 pm
I’ve annotated your closeup to show better what I mean:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/akhen3sir/5266851542/
Which stone with a great amount of moss underneath it are you referring to? I’m sure that the only two stones in the foreground are 55 and 56.
January 4, 2011 at 3:13 pm
I stand corrected, on closer inspection, I find you are correct! See my next Blog for my revised results.