Moth
|
Re: The bluestone debate
Jun 14, 2006, 22:20
|
Yeah, I was thinking of that one. I've always yhought it's flimsy 'proof' that there were enough bluestone erratics floating around Wiltshire for the Sthengers to think "Oh, let's use them pretty blue sparkly ones...."
I've not seen what's actually new about this theory. Lots of peeps have believed it for years - inc Mr Burl methinks.
It's weird - I'm not even biased towards the people did it approach, but the evidence for that is more convincing than the erratics a go-go that all just happen to have a gone-gone approach.
love
Moth
|
Moth
|
Re: The bluestone debate
Jun 14, 2006, 22:27
|
Having just actually read the article, it's so sloppily written that I can't even really get any proper impression of why they think it's good evidence....
Anyone seen the item covered properly anywhere?
love
Moth
|
sam
|
Re: The bluestone debate
Jun 14, 2006, 22:35
|
it is mentioned more here:
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~brianj/bluestones59.html
doesn't really make much more sense, it's just longer.
sam
|
Littlestone
|
Re: The bluestone debate
Jun 14, 2006, 22:41
|
|
It's very sloppily written, and while not having read the original source material it seems like an example of someone, or some group (in this case a geologist or a group of geologists at the Open University), trying to make a quick 'academic' buck.
|
Paulus
|
Re: The bluestone debate
Jun 14, 2006, 23:05
|
|
Hmmmm...although there's a couple of simple errors in the report, I can't really see what this bollox of 'sloppily written' and other antagonisms are towards the idea. It's just an idea after all. Not sure if I buy it misself, so what's the problem? Offending some long-held beliefs or summat? Or just giving some of you summat to criticise as usual?
|
nigelswift
|
Re: The bluestone debate
Jun 15, 2006, 07:15
|
I came across these comments on the subject -
"The question of how the stones were transported is not important. Professor Stephens, formerly of Swansea University, was wont to declare: ' You'd be amazed what you can achieve of a Saturday afternoon, dear boy.' And he was probably right. Putting up Stonehenge is no bother if you have a mind to it. Yet this thought did not enter the heads of those who suggested that only a glacier could have transported the bluestones to Wiltshire - (what nonsense, there is no evidence of glaciation in south Gloucestershire and Wiltshire), but I saw this ridiculous theory on the T.V. less than 12 months ago. Unbelievable. That's archaeologists for you- honestly, the rubbish they spout at times..( "
Personally, i think it's an open question. IF glaciers got there then maybe its feasible the lack of other bluestones could be accounted for by the fact that they were all brought in a tight bunch and deposited in an end moraine in one small area.
On the other hand, humans shifting 4 ton bluestones 150 miles seems less of a big deal than humans shifting 40 ton sarsens 20 miles. Truth is though, one of the world's most widely known scientific facts is that "Druids brought Stonehenge from Wales" and that's not going to change anytime soon.
|
Cursuswalker
|
Re: The bluestone debate
Jun 15, 2006, 07:51
|
So they found a Bluestone in a long barrow within 30-40 miles of Stonehenge, when it is thought that a large quantity of them were transported to the Stonehenge site in the Bronze Age.
I call that increased Bluestone popularity.
Have any "wild" Bluestones been found in the South West of England? Without those the glacial theory is dead.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: The bluestone debate
Jun 15, 2006, 08:03
|
Well, Aubrey Burl cited them as having been found on Flat Holme and Steepholme in support of his own belief in glaciers but that (and much else he said) was challenged in letters to British Archaeology -
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:XiXuXa7kNOgJ:www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba47/ba47lets.html+%22Boles+Barrow%22+bluestone&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&ie=UTF-8
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: The bluestone debate
Jun 15, 2006, 08:20
|
|
Maybe the blustones in barrows were the occupants rather than the material of the barrow. Several archaeologists (I had to correct that having first typed archaeoloGITS) believe that the bluestones at Stonehenge represent ancestors (or their spirts), so maybe one or two of the most important ones were given a barrow burial.
|
CraigR
|
Re: The bluestone debate
Jun 15, 2006, 08:28
|
I am in no way certain. But I found this interesting. Apologies if it's 'old hat'.
http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba45/ba45int.html
|
