Littlestone
|
Re: Known examples
Jun 17, 2006, 20:41
|
|
Another fascinating feature of some of the pyramidal structures (of Teotihuacan) is that they contain a broad, thick layer of mica, which had to be brought from Brazil, over 2000 miles away! If you know anything about mica, it's very flaky and fragile, yet it was brought in very large pieces from great distances (and without wheeled vehicles). Then the mica was used on an inner layer of the pyramid, not where it could be seen. Why? *
* http://www.crystalinks.com/mexico.html
|
The Eternal
|
Re: The bluestone debate
Jun 17, 2006, 23:20
|
Greetings, Cursuswalker,
Good question, and one that needs answering by the glaciated stone thoeorists.
I think another important question is why would the Stonehenge People, to coin a phrase, go all the way to Preseli to get stone? If they did, then there must be a reason. Otherwise, why not use the local sarsen, like they did for the trilithons? That is the key. Some people suggest the position of the Preselis in the west for the reason, and its association with that direction with life, death and ancestors. The truth is we will never be certain, as we can never ask the people who matter, nor did they leave written records.
It's all interesting stuff though. Perhaps we will never find out, which, on the positive side, is good for argument and discussion, for we can't argue with hard fact.
Regards,
TE.
|
Pete G
|
Re: The bluestone debate
Jun 17, 2006, 23:28
|
Well one thing that springs to mind is Geofrey of Monmouths account that an already existing monument in Ireland was bought to England.
Some of the blue stones have tenon and Mortices on them so they must have formed an earlier monument of mini trilathons.
|
FourWinds
|
And ...
Jun 18, 2006, 08:16
|
... there is a source of Bluestone in Kerry.
T.C. Lethbridge (an accomplished sailor) reckoned the sea journey needed to bring the stones from Ireland went through easier waters than the trip from Wales.
|
Cursuswalker
|
Re: The bluestone debate
Jun 18, 2006, 08:22
|
That is the frustrating thing about the Preseli origin. We KNOW there is a story behind their having been used in Stonehenge, and we KNOW we will never get to hear it.
As a Druid I find this very frustrating. We likes our stories we do.
So it is quite tempting to replace that story with one we can tell................hence glaciers did it.
I'm still sticking to the story about my Astra and its poor long-suffering roofrack :-)
|
nigelswift
|
Re: The bluestone debate
Jun 18, 2006, 08:37
|
|
The best "defence" against the glacier theory (assuming we all have a dodgy non-scientific wish for the "human transportation" story to be the right one, which I do) is to desist from asking "why would the Stonehenge People go all the way to Preseli to get stone?" and to be much more positive about the evidence and to say, confidently - "it looks very much as if the Stonehenge People went BACK to Preseli to get their stone circle".
|
moss
|
Re: The bluestone debate
Jun 18, 2006, 09:15
|
"Dodgy non-scientific wishes"
Jones calls it the Stonehenge Myth, which just happens to make a good story, he says the transportation of the bluestones requires a great deal of imagination - stirring tales of primitive men hauling massive bluestones on sledges from Milford to the Bristol channel (has anyone seen the tidal reach up the estuary) to the Avon Valley on the assumption that a) Preseli area was a sanctified area, b) that they desired/sanctified the stone type which was used for stone axes. Lot of non-rational thought there then.... what we all need is the Tardis to see what really happened..
|
StoneLifter
|
|
|
If the bluestones were also previously another circle or structure then they will have been transported from a third location (other than the originating quarry).
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Also
Jun 18, 2006, 10:09
|
If the bluestones were also previously another circle or structure then they will have been transported from a third location (other than the originating quarry).
Indeed, and that could explain the fact that they came from different locations in Preseli, not a single quarry. It seems they occur in convenient blocks and suitable ones could have been searched for in the general vicinity and assembled into a circle, only to be subsequently moved as a whole to Wilts. That has a certain logic to it, whereas Stonehenge people going there and picking stones from different places when they got there is much more puzzling.
In reply to:
Also (StoneLifter) | |
Replies:
Re: Also (Steve Gray)
|
|
nigelswift
|
Re: The bluestone debate
Jun 18, 2006, 10:27
|
he says the transportation of the bluestones requires a great deal of imagination
Well, a great deal of experimental archaeology perhaps - e.g.
"stirring tales of primitive men hauling massive bluestones on sledges"
- but evidence suggests they did it with Sarsens from Avebury
"has anyone seen the tidal reach up the estuary"
... but estuary-going Bronze Age boats have been found e.g. at Feriby.
"the assumption that a) Preseli area was a sanctified area, b) that they desired/sanctified the stone type which was used for stone axes. Lot of non-rational thought there then..."
But a rational assumption that they brought their pre-existing circle with them answers that at a stroke.
I think he's glacier-biassed (just as we're human-transportation biassed) and he's quite wrong to say human transportation is a fanciful idea.
|
