=
×

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
mountainman
90 posts

Re: The bluestone debate
Dec 17, 2008, 11:42
Littlestone says: "They must have missed some of the sarsens at Stonehenge then - the ones that were hauled there from some 30km away." That's your opinion -- but I still haven't seen any evidence to support it. I'll stick to the HHT theory on this one until somebody comes up with a killer fact.

With regard to Old Keig, tell me why it isn't a glacial erratic. The ice crossed this part of Aberdeenshire on several occasions in the Ice Age. Ice has no problems either in quarrying large rocks or moving them uphill. It's entirely logical to assume a natural explanation for most phenomena (eg large stones in "strange" places) and if that doesn't work, look for another (human-based) explanation instead. In exactly the same way I would assume that a cliff at the coast is created by the sea, and a large hole in a limestone area is caused by the solution of limestone. Because a large stone is incorporated into a dolmen, it doesn't mean it was dragged to it from somewhere else. There's a 60-tonner at Garn Turne. Ther stone was there before the tomb.
In reply to:
Re: The bluestone debate (nigelswift)		 Replies:
Re: The bluestone debate (nigelswift)
Re: The bluestone debate (Littlestone)
Topic Outline:
The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index