=
×

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, 09:44
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 .
In reply to:
Re: The bluestone debate (Littlestone)		 Replies:
Re: The bluestone debate (mountainman)
Re: The bluestone debate (moss)
Topic Outline:
The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index