|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge and its Environs » The bluestone debate |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Dec 13, 2008, 22:01
|
||
|
Good to see the thread is up and running again. Thought it might have been permanently shut off... Nah, though as its originator I think I might be entitled to shut it down for 24 hours while tempers cool and it's given the chance to get back on topic ;-) The point is that just because you believe that Neolithic tribes were capable of transporting stones from A to B, that does not mean they actually did it. Quite. I'm no expert, and can't back up my belief that the stones were transported by human means but (rightly or wrongly) it's my gut feeling that that's how they got to where they are. Happy to be proved wrong though - that's what this debate is all about :-)
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Dec 13, 2008, 23:44
|
||
|
I don't think anyone here has been guilty of being "determined to maintain the human transport theory" if by that is meant "determined to maintain it happened". All I've seen is people saying it remains a feasible theory so far. The evidence for small megaliths being portable is overwhelming. Not sure why you feel you haven't seen any. How about the fact that huge megaliths are at Stonehenge, that's "evidence" of microlithic portability ain't it?
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 14, 2008, 00:05
|
||
|
mountainman wrote: In fact, the availability of stone was the prime factor in fixing location. Why should Stonehenge have been any different? Whilst I accept the possiblity of the glaciation theory in relation to Stonehenge , that doesn't mean that great efforts didn't take place to move stones long distances . The is plenty proof of that . Choosing a site like Stonehenge had very likely nothing to do with the availability of stone . A common feature of monumentality is an earlier timber structure that was late rreplaced by stone , in these type of circumstances it is apparent that the site was primary not the availibility of stone . This could also be applicable to Stonehenge due to the earliest presence of wooden features i.e. the timber posts dating from the Mesolithic .
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Dec 14, 2008, 00:28
|
||
|
Choosing a site like Stonehenge had very likely nothing to do with the availability of stone. That's an interesting observation Mr t. Earlier in the year I sat for a while near the edge of Stonehenge and, while marvelling at its structure (just sit there for a while and look - it may not be big in modern terms but it is enormous by any other definition), couldn't help asking myself - why here? I can see why Avebury, and especially Silbury, may have been set where they are but Stonehenge? Forget for a moment the question of moving or not moving the bluestones from Preseli - what on earth was so special about this place that inspired the builders of Stonehenge to build there?
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Edited Dec 14, 2008, 07:22
Dec 14, 2008, 02:35
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Choosing a site like Stonehenge had very likely nothing to do with the availability of stone . A common feature of monumentality is an earlier timber structure that was late rreplaced by stone , in these type of circumstances it is apparent that the site was primary not the availibility of stone . Quite. Using two types of carpentry joints in a stone structure is a heck of a clue. Plus, the gap between the dates of Stonehenge and the Mesolithic posts is shrinking. Maybe one day it will close. If so, the relevant question will be why were the posts located there.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 14, 2008, 09:07
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: tiompan wrote: Choosing a site like Stonehenge had very likely nothing to do with the availability of stone . A common feature of monumentality is an earlier timber structure that was late rreplaced by stone , in these type of circumstances it is apparent that the site was primary not the availibility of stone . Quite. Using two types of carpentry joints in a stone structure is a heck of a clue. Plus, the gap between the dates of Stonehenge and the Mesolithic posts is shrinking. Maybe one day it will close. If so, the relevant question will be why were the posts located there. To be fair the gap from Mesolithic posts to the construction of the ditch and bank is too big to suggest continuity . The earliest evidence for the use of wood at the site is a few post holes in the circumference of the bank but the point was that the Mesolithic post erectors chose wood not stone . Yes mortice and tenon in stone is hugely significant .
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 14, 2008, 09:44
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: Choosing a site like Stonehenge had very likely nothing to do with the availability of stone. That's an interesting observation Mr t. Earlier in the year I sat for a while near the edge of Stonehenge and, while marvelling at its structure (just sit there for a while and look - it may not be big in modern terms but it is enormous by any other definition), couldn't help asking myself - why here? I can see why Avebury, and especially Silbury, may have been set where they are but Stonehenge? Forget for a moment the question of moving or not moving the bluestones from Preseli - what on earth was so special about this place that inspired the builders of Stonehenge to build there? Dunno if you are talking specifically about Stonehenge or the general area . I reckon the latter may have a lot to do with it rather than the site itself . It had been cleared and the cursus (plural) and Robin Hoods Ball and some barrows are huge earlier monuments that indicate the general area was important before the building of the new "cemetery " in the suburbs .
|
|||
|
mountainman 90 posts |
Dec 14, 2008, 10:33
|
||
|
If this was a settled landscape with communities, farmed areas, ritual features, and even a few wooden henges scattered about there might have been quite a few options for the siting of this ambitious thing we now call Stonehenge. I wonder how many wooden henges there were in the general area? Surely there must have been a very long gap between Mesolithic settings and the Neolithic ones -- 2,000 - 3,000 years at least? A scatter of available big stones in the neighbourhood may have been what decided the locals to try something made out of stone. The site itself is pretty innocuous -- that has struck me every time I've been there -- no summit, no vast vistas, just a gentle slope on a rolling piece of downland...
|
|||
moss 2897 posts |
Dec 14, 2008, 10:37
|
||
|
No matter how one tries to work it out whether the bluestones were already on Salisbury plain through glaciation (though there is no evidence of this) or that they came from Carn Meyn, there is tantalising evidence in the fact that two strong tidal reaches are caught up in the puzzle, and transportation by boat can be seen as a possibility. Milford Haven with the East Cleddau emptying into it and the Severn Estuary with evidence of bronze age boats at Caldicot and Goldcliff. If Stonehenge is an ancient sacred central meeting place with the dead being brought to be buried, bringing stones from a long distance is seen to be possible. Given that you can see the sea from up on Carn Meyn, what about an ancient prehistoric track coming over from Ireland with traders who saw the 'potential' of the rather beautiful bluestone.....
|
|||
|
mountainman 90 posts |
Dec 14, 2008, 11:43
|
||
|
Sorry Moss -- don't go along with this "tantalizing evidence" idea at all. Tidal streams and tide races, and rapid river flows, caused mayhem in the Millennium Stone project, causing the bluestone to end up on the bed of Milford Haven. And there has been endless speculation about trade routes, passing traders noticing spotted dolerite etc. Remember that there are at least 20 different rock types in the Stonehenge bluestone assemblage. Why would anybody want to pick up all those "rubbish stones" just because they saw some pretty ones as they passed along a ridgeway? As far as I'm concerned this is all circular reasoning: they could have done it, therefore they might have done it, therefore they possibly did do it, therefore it probably happened......... The off Bronze Age boat doesn't tell us much either -- remember we are talking about the Early Neolithic here.
|
| Pages: 39 – [ Previous | 1 … 33 34 35 36 37 38 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
