LETTERS

In reply to our enquiry about the fate of the Avebury stones which were not re-erected, the Department of the Environment Ancient Monuments Secretariat wrote the following:

Thank you for your letter of 13 July on which I have asked our Inspector to comment. We believe that all the stones which were buried in the Middle Ages were re-erected by Mr Keiller, the former owner of the site, in the 1920’s. Stone-holes were located for the missing stones, which have been broken up for use as building material. Yours sincerely S.J. Walton, Ancient Monuments Secretariat.
....................
If any member of the I.G.R. or reader of the Journal has any more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact the editor.
....................

From A. Fisk, of Tregavon, Wales:

Having recently moved into Wales, I have been studying maps of this area, in particular the Pumpsaint Zodiac. An observation I have made that may be of interest is that the figure Mr Edwards quotes as Aquarius can quite easily be drawn as a dove or phoenix rather than the quoted squirrel.

This is done by following the stream Nant Clywedog-isaf south east from where Mr Edwards’s figure meets a ford (Ref: Sheet SN 65 636-5099) until you meet a footbridge (Refs: 636-508). From here you follow a footpath until reaching an ancient road (classed as Roman) Sarn Helen. At a fork in this road take the southernmost path until it joins the Cellan–Llanfair road at Ref: 621-511. We have now completed the tail and the breast of the bird, for the neck and head we follow the Nant Clywedog until it joins the Afon Teifi, then north-east along the Teifi until meeting the squirrel at Llanfair Bridge.

From Robert Forrest, of Lancashire:

I noted with interest Keith Raison’s letter in J. Geomancy 1/4 , and would like to make one very telling observation on the basis of his rejection of the statistical case as it stands at present.

Assume for a moment that ley lines exist, and that the Ordnance Survey, in preparing its maps has not deliberately set out to omit just those sites which are required to make the mapped ley system a statistically viable proposition. In other words, the OS may miss sites out, but they do so for no biassed reason. This being the case, given the validity of the ley system, and granted there is no wicked anti-geomantic intent on the part of the OS, we should still find significant alignment properties amongst the ‘shown on the map’ sites.

But of course, this does not appear to be the case, and so, though Keith is being strictly correct when he says that a model which does not incorporate all factors into its fabric must be of limited application, he is being much too sweeping in his rejection. Time and again when I have considered the ley system on the merits of its shown-on-the-map sites, it has not come out statistically significant and so unless it can be shown that (to take a light-hearted example by way of illustration) Glyn Daniel has been on the board of governors of the OS since the late nineteenth century, then Keith has still {17} to explain this lack of statistical significance on the map, where, granted that the ley system is real, statistical significance should be found.

As to the matter of angular/declination properties of a ley network, these too can be reproduced in simulations, as has been demonstrated both by Michael Behrend and myself.

The fact is that unless a high-accuracy is insisted upon in azimuths etc., a surprising number of spurious angular relationships can arise simply by chance. As Michael Behrend has put it, “If it’s not accurate, it’s no good”.

I would indeed like to hear more about the analyses of John Williams’s work, about the allowed error in Mr Williams’s azimuths, about the map ‘Sent to America’ and the methods of its analysis. Without a great deal more information being given, it is impossible to reliably comment at this stage on the results as quoted in Hitching’s book. Perhaps we can persuade Mr Williams to supply this information?

From Alan Bullion, of Tonbridge, Kent:

(on the Grey Wether, Kit’s Coty) … it is great that the DOE have at last shown an interest and I hope my map may be of help. In actual fact I find it quite surprising that the DOE knew nothing of this megalith as it was so near and so evident to view from such a well visited monument as Kit’s Coty. I have found other undocumented stones in this area which are also unmapped and probably equally unknown to the DOE. If they really care they should use public money to some good by documenting the area by field survey, thus cataloguing all extant megalithic remains for good.

I was also very interested to learn that the Subterranea Britannica* people had not heard of the Tonbridge tunnels. I have learned of another underground tunnel in the north of the town in the grounds of a Seeboard Staff Training College near Starvecrow Hill. This tunnel leads from the main college building to the lakes and is again blocked off due to its ‘dangerous condition’. I can remember using this tunnel many years ago actually and it was not caving in then, but it probably serves the college no purpose now. There was also another entrance I vaguely recall on the road at the other side of the lakes, but I can no longer find this. This tunnel does not yet fit into the system as a whole in the town, but more work is being done by myself in the area called North Frith.

I also know of a much longer tunnel, possibly a memory of a long-distance ley-line, from Tunbridge Wells to Hastings on the Sussex coast. There is in fact an entrance under some rocks at Mount Edgecombe Hotel in Tunbridge Wells, where horses were formerly stalled. This is now in private grounds however and blocked off to the public.

* Subterranea Britannica is a society which investigates and documents all man-made underground structures in Britain. Further details may be obtained from Mrs Sylvia Beamon, Address, Royston, Hertfordshire.

{18}

From Rupert Pennick, of Bexley, Kent:

A few days ago I made a fresh visit to Kit’s Coty, the best known of the Kentish megaliths, situated in the shelter of the North Downs about a mile and a half north-east of Aylesford. I entered the field at the north-east corner and avoiding the standing crop I walked along the northern side which is bounded by woodland, and close to a strange bare semi-circle of ground I found several pieces of stone which appeared to be broken from a larger block. Two pieces I measured were at their greatest points 16×11×6 cm and 13×9×7 cm.

When I returned home I examined a copy of a picture drawn by Stukeley on the 15 October 1722 showing the stone chamber standing at the eastern end of a broad ridge running east–west which he called “The Grave”, being in fact the remains of the Neolithic long barrow. The drawing indicates that the western end was bounded by a single stone called the “General’s Tomb”. This stone has subsequently disappeared. Stukeley also mentioned that in 1723 information sent to him by a correspondent spoke of “a parcell of small stones” extending from the north-west and south-east of the chamber in the form of an arc.

The stones I found had holes bored into them, one passing right through the larger of the two stones measured. I wonder if in fact they would be remains of either the arc of stones or even part of the “General’s Tomb”.

I hope to keep you informed of any future discoveries and any developments in the investigation into the Kentish megaliths.

From A.J. Bell, Leeds:

… Entertaining also (as ever) is Devil’s Advocate Robert Forrest who has put his foot into it by choosing the F-unit (I thought it was a famous loco by EMD) as 9 Stades. So we have RF trying to show us how many churches are separated by integral stadia. I wouldn’t have believed it. RF I guess chose his F by taking the 1st 3 Nos. ie. 2^{(√3 − 1)} in combo. But did he guess that the same 3 Nos. would be approximated as 1²/3? Surely a good ole RF math type coincidence. Then using distances less than 5F (about), the inaccuracy of 5/3 = 1·661 wouldn’t show up as he’s doing it to nearest mm on (I guess) 1:50 000. Now 27 Stades = 5 km, so 5/3 km = 5/3 × 27/5 = 9 Stadia.

I’m not against his point, i.e. care is needed when you try to give significance to things that maybe the great god “Chance” has (or could) cause(d). Bob talks about statistical chex on internal distances of integral amounts but doesn’t spell out what’s needed – maybe we’re going to see something from him on this.