|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge and its Environs » The bluestone debate |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Stoneshifter 379 posts |
Nov 14, 2008, 18:48
|
||
Yes - a great deal hinges on whether Darvill and Wainwright can identify a piece of bluestone, in the Preseli mountains, that has been quarried and is nearby, that can be matched with a very similar one in Stonehenge. The bluestone in the Bristol estuary could have been transported by glacial action just as readily by boat.
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Nov 14, 2008, 18:52
|
||
Hi Brian , your right it has become a sacred a cow and if we are nor careful there are a few others waiting in byre .
|
|||
|
mountainman 90 posts |
Nov 14, 2008, 23:00
|
||
|
I suppose any theory that gets widely accepted is likely to become a sacred cow....... if we are not careful. Even if Profs D and W find slabs or pillars of bluestone in the eastern Preseli Hills area and trace them to Carn Meini or one of the other outcrops, and them match them with one or more of the monoliths at Stonehenge, that will tell us nothing about the human transport theory. The outcrops of spotted dolerite have been quarried for centuries by local people wanting gateposts, lintels, doorsteps etc. There are spotted dolerite gateposts all over N Pembs! Some were carried from the mountains, others were picked up as erratics. Bethel Chapel (Mynachlogddu) used Carn Meini stone when it was rebuilt in the 1800's, and Cana Chapel (Felindre Farchog_) used stone from Carn Goedog when it was rebuilt........
|
|||
|
Stoneshifter 379 posts |
Nov 15, 2008, 07:24
|
||
And the fabled underwater bluestone will have a story to tell - if only we could find it!
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Nov 15, 2008, 08:51
|
||
|
"As many people have pointed out, there is not a single piece of evidence to support the latter, whereas there is quite a lot of evidence to support the former. So on the balance of probablilities, the glacial transport theory has to be the one to go for " I don't think lack of evidence is a reason to say "on the balance of probabilities" it didn't happen. It still may have so should be retained as a reasonable theory and the fact that there's possible evidence for something else having happened doesn't change that. Some processes simply happen but leave no sign. Where is the evidence, footprints, drag marks or empty holes, for the theory that the sarsens were dragged to Stonehenge from the Marlborough Downs?
|
|||
|
mountainman 90 posts |
Nov 15, 2008, 10:03
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Some processes simply happen but leave no sign. Where is the evidence, footprints, drag marks or empty holes, for the theory that the sarsens were dragged to Stonehenge from the Marlborough Downs? Ah, now we come to another sacred cow!! That particular idea was invented by Richard Atkinson -- HH Thomas did not think the sarsens were manhandled from the Marlborough Downs. He thought they were just collected from the Stonehenge area, where they littered the landscape. Prof Summerfield and Goudie shared the HHT view.
|
|||
|
mountainman 90 posts |
Nov 15, 2008, 10:11
|
||
|
Stoneshifter wrote: And the fabled underwater bluestone will have a story to tell - if only we could find it! It's a mistake to home in on this mysterious "missing bluestone." There are large erratic boulders on the bed of Milford Haven and on the floor of the Bristol Channel -- every now and then some of them are found during piling operations etc. The story about the "missing bluestone" was invented in order to explain why a piece of Cosheston sandstone was supposedly taken from the shore of Milford Haven -- the thinking was that it was supposed to be a replacement for a bluestone lost in transit and sunk to the bed of the Haven. Very tortuous and circular reasoning. Now we know that the Altar Stone didn't come from the Cosheston Beds at all. So the theory isn't even needed any longer. The "missing bluestone" should be categorized with unicorns, dragons and mermaids. It would be nice if they existed, but one has one's doubts.......
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Nov 15, 2008, 10:32
|
||
|
"Ah, now we come to another sacred cow!! That particular idea was invented by Richard Atkinson -- HH Thomas did not think the sarsens were manhandled from the Marlborough Downs. He thought they were just collected from the Stonehenge area, where they littered the landscape." Yes I know. But all 4 theories are unproven, why should two be picked out as sacred cows and wrong? As for evidence for human transport, the Millenium Project was a shambles but that didn't prove the bluestones couldn't have been moved by humans, just not in a ramshackle fashion. And the evidence that the sarsens could have been moved by people is very strong - ask Gordon Pipes, Julian Richard and loads of others worldwide. Maybe the sarsens were strewn about on the Plain but that still involved shifting forty-tonners a mile or two. Why is "shifting them a mile or two" sensible whereas "shifting them 21 miles" is incredible and a sacred cow? I just think collating evidence for a particular theory shouldn't involve slagging off the alternatives. All four are possible.
|
|||
|
mountainman 90 posts |
Nov 15, 2008, 11:24
|
||
|
Sorry Nigel -- I thought we were supposed to be arguing out where the weight of evidence lies? All 4 theories can't be right -- at least not in their entirety. Probably what we'll end up with is a classic compromise, with ice doing some of the work and man the rest. Would you not agree with me that the archaeology establishment has worked rather hard at making sure that their sacred cows remain sacred? Look at the way Kellaway and Williams-Thorpe were ignored and vilified by men who should have known better, just because they dared to question the established belief system of our leading archaeologists........ Richard Thorpe and his colleagues put forward meticulously researched geological evidence in 1991. They have never had the credit they deserved, for their contribution to a full understanding of Stonehenge.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Nov 15, 2008, 12:30
|
||
|
Well I think there's two mechanisms at work - 1. everyone tends to slip into over-defending their pet theories and 2. it's not a good career move for archaeologists to rock the boat. And so the cow gains gravitas. Human beings, eh? As for "where the weight of evidence lies?" that's a philosophical point. Does "some evidence" outweigh "no evidence" Numerically yes, but it's a dangerous rule on which to base an opinion as it might be wrong!
|
| Pages: 39 – [ Previous | 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 16 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
