=
×

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
tiompan
tiompan
5758 posts

Re: The bluestone debate
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 .
In reply to:
Re: The bluestone debate (nigelswift)
Topic Outline:
The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index