Stonehenge Solved Its Three Observatories, Who built them, How and Why

On arrival at the site the first task of the fourth team was completion of the sarsen circle. This included the secondary entrance at station 123, and the closing, last to be erected upright 21, with its two beams, situated mid way round the sector, Figs 56, 57 phase c). Thereafter they would erect the circle and mast bollards, many of the bluestones for which, had been and were being, used as equipment in the construction process. There was a seeming tight availability of stones for the beams, but no visits were to be made to the quarry for more. When the bollards were erected, the installation would be rigged with spars and lines, the site tidied, the hosts trained in its operation, and arrangements agreed for transmission of the observational results. It is important to note that stations 120,121and 122 were for the hoist assisted spars of mast 158, and stations 124,125 and 126 for those of mast 160. As with the spars of other masts, the six were intended to make a significant contribution to the installation's capability.

Being the last team, inevitably they were the recipients of the sins and omissions of their predecessors, the most serious of these, found on arrival, being the shortage of stones for beams. Whether or not they could have anticipated such difficulties on leaving base, they must have been told of the now useless pommel and shackle frames, and received guidance as to the preferred alternative method of positioning, or fitting the beams. It is supposed that while standing inside the circle, the constructors used freely held staves, or poles, while being guided by co-ordinators standing each side on adjacent beams or uprights. Perhaps the most debilitating factor for them was absence of the infectious enthusiasm afforded the early teams on their departure, by their patrons. This could have been due to aging, or the demise of some, resignation about the changed climate, the scepticism of their peers, or all of these. Although the team was to demonstrate the necessary skills, these adverse factors and the mishaps that were to befall them, prompts the name: the Harassed Team.

Their plan was as follows. On the anticlockwise side of the prospective closing upright 21, beam 116 would be raised and construction of the circle continued to upright 20 with beam 120 raised and fitted. On the clockwise side of upright 21, upright 27 would be erected and beam 128 raised and fitted, with construction progressing to upright 22, the entrance spacer being raised at 123, Fig 57. With this done upright 21 would be erected and its two beams 122 and 121 raised and fitted. It seems probable that the team divided for the construction of these two sectors, so that they could be addressed in parallel. This conclusion is reached because while, with only one exception, the geometry of the anticlockwise team is consistent, and the work process smooth, the work of their fellows is riddled with problems and inconsistencies.

The exception in the anticlockwise sector concerns the positions of the Y and Z lever guide post holes opposite upright 19, Fig 47. Had a lever been placed alongside these on one side or the other, they would not have been positioned appropriately for raising beam 119 nor 120. In any event the guide post holes opposite upright 18 were suitably placed for raising beam 119, and those opposite upright 20 were suitable for beam 120. One can only conclude that these two beams were raised each with two levers. This could have been achieved by locating a lever between the 119 guide posts, first one way, and then the other, firstly for beam 119, then 120. Although in the other sector two beams are used on two occasions, nowhere else round the sarsen circle is a lever located between guide posts. There must have been a reason and it is speculated to have been an experiment in avoiding the deployment of two bluestones as guide posts. If so, it came too late in the day to provide a future useful construction advantage. Turning now to the clockwise sector, its actualitie was far removed from the plan. The first upright to be erected, 27, was positioned too far inside the scribed circle and was skewed clockwise, Figs 42, 53, 57 phase a),(i). Because upright 28 had been correctly positioned by the Model team, it was inevitable that beam128 had to be fashioned with a parallelogram shaped plan. The effect of this was to skew its non-assisted spar anticlockwise. Unusually, two tree stem levers were employed to raise the following beam 127 and position it, instead of the usual one, and it is surmised this was because levers of less than usual girth were employed. The following uprights 126,125 and 124 are assumed to have been appropriately positioned with beam 126 raised and fitted.

Because of the absence of suitably positioned lever guide post holes, it would appear beam 125 was not raised, Fig 47. The reason for this is not obvious, but possibly it was dealt with out of sequence and subsequently a suitable stone for the beam was not available when wanted. This was a serious omission because it resulted in the absence of mast 160's central hoist assisted spar, Fig 53. This was the first of really serious difficulties.

Upright 23 was erected, which allowed the raising of beam 124, again with two levers, but the latter was to fail in the ultimate servicing of its hoist assisted spar, Fig 57 phases b) and d) . This was to be because of the absence of supportive fellows on each side:125 and, as we are about to see, 123. We have already seen beam 125 was not fitted, and now the spacer of the secondary entrance at 123 was not fitted either, Fig 57 phases b) and c). In explanation of this, while the spacer was in fact fashioned for proper raising and fitting, complete with rebates on its underside, it was subsequently modified for use at 122. The absence of its rebates left uprights 123 and 122 prone to the hazard of leaning towards one another, not that, in the event, this would turn out to be of consequence.

The circle of uprights was completed with the erection of upright 22, followed by the final closing upright 21. The latter was the only upright to be raised from inside the circle as evidenced by its ramp. With about 6m (20 ft) of clear ground left to mast 158, enough space was available for the equipment needed to raise it. It is supposed this unique action was to ensure the equipment was left more conveniently on the inside of the circle ready for further use there. Upright 21 was unusually narrow. Its two (closing) beams 122 and 121 were raised in the usual way, with levers. But whereas this was customarily done with the prospective beam being raised on the inside of the circle, with the lever protruding through the gap, here the beams were raised up on the outside, the nose of the lever remaining outside also. This is evidenced by the vestiges of the vertical rubbing stakes, strips, or poles, being found at the outer side of upright 21's foundation hole. The necessity for this arrangement stemmed from the unusual inner ramp resulting in insecure ground on which to mount the chocks, as the beams were raised. Clearly, in contrast, the ground outside the circle was firm.

This departure from the usual practice, while ingenious, was not a good move, if the events arising from the following brief summary of the situation at mast 158, are anything to go by, Fig 57 phase d). In addition to the modified beam of station 123 already mentioned (perched in the beam 122 position in modern times), both tenons of upright 21 are missing, with broken off corner pieces of stone from each side of its top. Being a narrow stone it is likely the consequent higher loading per square centimetre, of the beams, may have been too high, causing fractures. Lever guide post holes for beams 122 and 121 exist, indicating that they were raised. Of the four bollards servicing the mast, it is observed the centre two were erected; a hole was prepared for the anticlockwise one, but it was not erected, while at the clockwise one a shorter stone was mounted on a plinth in its hole.

A number of detailed scenarios are possible to account for these outcomes. But this much is apparent for the hoist assisted spars 120,121 and 122: as evidenced by the lever guide posts, attempts were made to raise beams at all three stations. But only in the case of beam 120, the last to be fitted by the proficient anticlockwise group, was a spar rigged to be operational. It is of interest that a gang-engraving is to be found on the underside of beam 120, a prescient thought on the part of its author. Earlier, it was noted that with the logical exception of mast 156, the practice was to have four mast bollards for servicing three hoists, that is to say, one more bollard than hoists. This rule provided a choice for dealing with how their lines ran from the mast uprights. Here, because three bollards were erected, it is clear that at some stage in the commissioning, the intention was to rig one or other of the two spars 121 or 122 but in the event neither of their beams were erected.

Faced with the tenonless, and therefore useless upright 21, the team resorted to the contingency spare; Slaughter Stone 95, as a replacement. They rendered it prostrate, and began removing unwanted material from its top before moving it into position for erection. But the work was soon abandoned, possibly for two reasons: it was too wide (stone 21 being unusually narrow), and because it was realised too few stones were available on site for fashioning replacement beams; there was no willingness to return to the quarry. (It is assumed the Slaughter Stone's fellow had already been utilised elsewhere in the sector).

With the insights gained at mast 158, one can now return to mast 160. Here, it will be recalled, station 126 was operational, while for some reason station 125 never was, possibly because of a shortage of suitable stones on site for beams. However, beam 124 was raised and subsequently fell. This may well have occurred when rigging the spar; suspected because of the absence of supportive tongues and grooves each side: on the missing fellows123 and 125. From this one would expect to see three bollards, and should there prove to be a hole, or vestiges of a stone under broken stone 59A, there would have been. Nevertheless there is supportive evidence of beam 124 failing upon commissioning, this in the form of the most anticlockwise bollard being extracted to leave a dolerite stone fragment in its hole. This properly left two bollards for servicing the sole operational hoist assisted spar. As with all the masts, the coherent evidence of the lever guide post holes, in relation to their associated mast bollards and holes, sarsen circle uprights and beams, with one possible exception, is consistent: a crucial test of this analysis.

The task now was to rig the installation, that is to say make and fit half-log timber runners to the mast bearers, prepare ropes and raise the spars with their lines, where this was possible, and ensure their full working order. But this could not be fully achieved without completing the erection of all the essential circle and mast bollards. The situation concerning the bluestones for these was chaotic. There were more than sufficient for all the requirements, because several were not needed due to inoperable stations. Additionally, there were redundant stones used as construction equipment standing, or lying about the site. For these, dual use had been planned at the outset by the project team back at base, to avoid unnecessary quarrying and transportation from Presceli. They included the abandoned eight pieces of the pommel and shackle frames and various lever guide posts. The design and the plans, intended the legs of the frames ultimately to be utilised as mast bollards on the southwest, where the tallest were required for mast 156. Elsewhere, any particular stone was utilised where it best suited the requirements of the aim-design.