=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Stonehenge and its Environs »
The bluestone debate
Log In to post a reply
390 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
nigelswift
8112 posts

Re: The bluestone debate
Nov 16, 2008, 17:29
Stoneshifter wrote:
Can you find anything that links to the boat that was found loaded with stones? I assume it's not ballast cobbles. (That's cobbles, not cobblers!) The bluestones aren't that big, I suppose. When we think of stones being transported to Stonehenge we inevitably envisage the trilithons. One rule of stonemasonry is 'don't move stones uphill' but then, sometimes, you've got to.


Bronze Age stone barge used on the Trent http://www.britarch.ac.uk/BA/ba69/news.shtml

The Dover and Ferriby boats would have carried 3 and 4.5 tons cargoes respectively, which covers a lot of the bluestones, 3 to 6 tons.

"One rule of stonemasonry is 'don't move stones uphill' "
A good rule, but Gordon managed to pull a 17 tonner uphill. Worrying whether stones could be pulled is a bit silly IMO. If you pull hard enough, she'll come, end of calculation. I think he used about fifty people to do that, half of whom were desk jockeys. Imagine if he'd had 500 horny handed sons of toil...

The barge idea appeals. You could pull bluestones up the river to within a mile or so of Stonehenge, dead easily.
In reply to:
Re: The bluestone debate (Stoneshifter)		 Replies:
Re: The bluestone debate (Stoneshifter)
Re: The bluestone debate (FourWinds)
Topic Outline:
The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index