|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge and its Environs » The bluestone debate |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 5529 posts |
Dec 18, 2008, 07:42
|
||
|
mountainman wrote: we have no way of knowing how dense this scatter might have been, or what components it might have had. That's quite true (well partly). But since you are the one that thinks it probably existed and I'm the one that's less sure, it falls to you to be chief speculator doesn't it? Anyhow, here are my guesses: 1. It may have looked like the nearest known ones, in the Avebury area http://www.english-nature.org.uk/ImageLibrary/web/11/11622.jpg http://www.walkweb.org.uk/Stone_209.jpg If so, it contained an awful lot of stones for them to have found enough suitable ones since, as you see, they are in a tiny minority at Avebury. And if that's the case we need to know why that huge number of rejects aren't there now. 2. Alternatively it might have been only a small scatter. But that would mean there was a high instance of usable stones, else they wouldn't have enough. By usable, I mean about the right size and shape. I guess that's possible (but needs checking with a geologist) but there's a further factor - this tendency to homogeneity would have to be in two forms - suitable upright shape and size AND suitable lintel shape and size. That would be a very strange happenstance, and rather a speculative stretch in the absence of other examples or geologists' confirmation that such things happen. 3. My favourite guess - there warn't no scatter at Stonehenge and they lugged them there. Incidentally, just for fun, on the subject of pulling big loads and whether it's conceivable, take a look at this, it's amazing what CAN be done that one would probably assume couldn't.... http://www.lakesideinn.net/lakesideinnstory/media/image005.jpg
|
|||
tiompan 3169 posts |
Dec 18, 2008, 17:24
|
||
|
mountainman wrote: Thorpe and Williams-Thorpe (Antiquity 1991) looked at all of the UK sites and found that the megalith builders used stones from up to 2 km away quite often, but that there was no case of stones being carried more than 5 km. So let's refer to all of these sites as "using locally-sourced stones." I have just had a quick skim through the Thorpe & Williams Thorpe paper and it is apparent that they merely done a quick survey not dissimilar to what archaeologists had noted since the early 20th C. i.e. that megalithic monuments are confined to areas where there are convenient local outcrops or rocky areas in general . They have not done a survey of each stone circle and the lithogeochemistry of each component ,an immense task and probably unnecessary as the basic assumption of the earlier archaeos is probably broadly correct that the builders used local materials exactly as you would expect . However there are some monuments where there is obviously not the case but as all these cases are in areas that have seen some ice cover or extreme glaciation they take the view that this explains all the anomalies . They are by no means as certain as you though in that they say “ most stone circles in Britain appear to have been constructed from local materials “ and “within the glaciated areas of N Europe it is more difficult to interpret because of the possibility of glacial transport “( my italics ) .They do mention Old Keig saying “the Grampian area has experienced repeated extensive glaciations ; the case for human transport , rather than selection from locally deposited glacial till is unproven “ I wonder , if by placing Old Keig within the Grampian area they are aware of the huge differential in glaciation in that political zone which contains the Cairngorms ,which were heavily glaciated but further north had an entirely different experience ( see “The Glacial Period in Aberdeenshire and the Southern Border of the Moray Firth “ Thomas Jamieson .) resulting in the previously mentioned lack of erratics . I doubt that you will find a local geologist claiming the recumbent to be an erratic. One scared cow may have been taken towards to the slaughter house but it may be replaced by another , if any reasonable suggestion is met by “it was probably an erratic “ it leads to a conclusion that the inhabitants of previously glaciated northern Europe were somehow causaklly connected to these events resulting in an inability to move megaliths long distances whilst their neighbours to the south , possibly not lacking in the mineral deficiencies
|
|||
|
mountainman 89 posts |
Dec 19, 2008, 10:11
|
||
That's all fair enough. Of course we can never be certain about these things -- but with my background, I will always look first for a natural explanation and then -- if there is some incontrovertible piece of evidence against it -- move on to an alternative. Quite often, as Olwen Williams-Thorpe and colleagues have pointed out, stones in megalithoic monuments assumed to have come from a long way off turn out not to have come very far at all. We need to know exact provenances for stones (sadly, that's not that easy in many cases without detailed geochemistry of the type that has now differentiated the ORS Cosheston Beds from the Senni Beds and sorted out the source of the Altar Stone) and also ice flow directions. (Other processes can move big stones too -- tsunamis, landslides, drifting ice floes, jokulhlaups etc -- and in some cases they migh be important.) By the way, Jamieson was writing a century ago -- the idea of "ice-free Buchan" has now been discredited. It was glaciated, but the ice that covered it was probably cold-based, and its landscape effects were limited.
|
|||
|
tiompan 3169 posts |
Dec 19, 2008, 10:31
|
||
|
mountainman wrote: That's all fair enough. Of course we can never be certain about these things -- but with my background, I will always look first for a natural explanation and then -- if there is some incontrovertible piece of evidence against it -- move on to an alternative. Quite often, as Olwen Williams-Thorpe and colleagues have pointed out, stones in megalithoic monuments assumed to have come from a long way off turn out not to have come very far at all. We need to know exact provenances for stones (sadly, that's not that easy in many cases without detailed geochemistry of the type that has now differentiated the ORS Cosheston Beds from the Senni Beds and sorted out the source of the Altar Stone) and also ice flow directions. (Other processes can move big stones too -- tsunamis, landslides, drifting ice floes, jokulhlaups etc -- and in some cases they migh be important.) By the way, Jamieson was writing a century ago -- the idea of "ice-free Buchan" has now been discredited. It was glaciated, but the ice that covered it was probably cold-based, and its landscape effects were limited. A lot of contemporary archaeological theory and interpretation will look silly in the next century , much of it does now , but the problem is that sometimes human agency can be undervalued particularly when motivated by extreme survival or ideological needs .Yes the Jamieson is old but it was the basic lack of effect which I was stressing .
|
| Pages: 39 – [ Previous | 1 … 34 35 36 37 38 39 ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
- ©2012ce Head Heritage Ltd. Contact us Top of page