|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge and its Environs » The bluestone debate |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Dec 14, 2008, 12:01
|
||
|
Actually, I think "they could have done it, therefore they might have done it, therefore they possibly did do it" is perfectly reasonable straight line reasoning and as far as most people here have gone. "therefore it probably happened" is the circular bit, added by you and criticised by you! ;)
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 14, 2008, 12:05
|
||
|
mountainman wrote: As far as I'm concerned this is all circular reasoning: they could have done it, therefore they might have done it, therefore they possibly did do it, therefore it probably happened......... Similarly, the presence /proximity of the stones were the reason for building the monument .
|
|||
|
mountainman 90 posts |
Dec 14, 2008, 14:34
|
||
|
I'm not criticising you, Nigel, or attacking you for circular reasoning. I'm trying to represent the orthodoxy that we find in all those learned tomes and in virtually everything published by EH about Stonehenge. In the standard guides the human transport theory is cited as FACT, on the basis of exactly the style of circular reasoning that I have mentioned. All I'm asking for, from the likes of our dear friends Profs W and D, is a bit more recognition of UNCERTAINTY. There is nothing like the same degree of uncertainty with regard to the glacial theory. At least once in the Ice Age, the Irish Sea Glacier flowed across West Wales and up the Bristol Channel. Fact. The ice reached some way inland in the Bristol area, Avon, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall. Fact. How far inland? Still uncertain. There are at least 20 different rock types in the bluestone assemblage. Fact. Erratic trails or fans are similarly mixed. Fact. Some of the bluestones at Stonehenge were made of soft ashes and flaky rhyolites -- crap stones for building monuments out of. Fact. Spotted dolerites are never used preferentially in Welsh megalithic structures. Fact. The ice streamlines and the rock types at Stonehenge match up. Fact. The builders of UK megalithic monuments always used stone that was locally available. Fact. Logically, the builders of Stonehenge would have done the same. Is there a problem with any of that?
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 14, 2008, 14:42
|
||
|
mountainman wrote: I'm not criticising you, Nigel, or attacking you for circular reasoning. I'm trying to represent the orthodoxy that we find in all those learned tomes and in virtually everything published by EH about Stonehenge. In the standard guides the human transport theory is cited as FACT, on the basis of exactly the style of circular reasoning that I have mentioned. All I'm asking for, from the likes of our dear friends Profs W and D, is a bit more recognition of UNCERTAINTY. There is nothing like the same degree of uncertainty with regard to the glacial theory. At least once in the Ice Age, the Irish Sea Glacier flowed across West Wales and up the Bristol Channel. Fact. The ice reached some way inland in the Bristol area, Avon, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall. Fact. How far inland? Still uncertain. There are at least 20 different rock types in the bluestone assemblage. Fact. Erratic trails or fans are similarly mixed. Fact. Some of the bluestones at Stonehenge were made of soft ashes and flaky rhyolites -- crap stones for building monuments out of. Fact. Spotted dolerites are never used preferentially in Welsh megalithic structures. Fact. The ice streamlines and the rock types at Stonehenge match up. Fact. The builders of UK megalithic monuments always used stone that was locally available. Fact. Logically, the builders of Stonehenge would have done the same. Is there a problem with any of that? Eh ? I'm not Nigel and didn't have any circular reasoning .
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 14, 2008, 14:57
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: mountainman wrote: I'm not criticising you, Nigel, or attacking you for circular reasoning. I'm trying to represent the orthodoxy that we find in all those learned tomes and in virtually everything published by EH about Stonehenge. In the standard guides the human transport theory is cited as FACT, on the basis of exactly the style of circular reasoning that I have mentioned. All I'm asking for, from the likes of our dear friends Profs W and D, is a bit more recognition of UNCERTAINTY. There is nothing like the same degree of uncertainty with regard to the glacial theory. At least once in the Ice Age, the Irish Sea Glacier flowed across West Wales and up the Bristol Channel. Fact. The ice reached some way inland in the Bristol area, Avon, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall. Fact. How far inland? Still uncertain. There are at least 20 different rock types in the bluestone assemblage. Fact. Erratic trails or fans are similarly mixed. Fact. Some of the bluestones at Stonehenge were made of soft ashes and flaky rhyolites -- crap stones for building monuments out of. Fact. Spotted dolerites are never used preferentially in Welsh megalithic structures. Fact. The ice streamlines and the rock types at Stonehenge match up. Fact. The builders of UK megalithic monuments always used stone that was locally available. Fact. Logically, the builders of Stonehenge would have done the same. Is there a problem with any of that? Eh ? I'm not Nigel and didn't have any circular reasoning . Sorry , I ignored the punctuation . As I have said a few times I sympathise with your view but you don't seem to appreciate the Fact that the builders of UK megalithic monuments did incorporate stones that were not local and had to be brought to the site without the help of glaciation , particularly in major monuments . e.g. Stonehenge (sarsens ), Newgrange , Old Keig and possibly Brodgar .
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Edited Dec 14, 2008, 15:18
Dec 14, 2008, 15:12
|
||
|
Wot he said, bigtime. And I too haven't employed circular reasoning and I too don't think glaciation is not a possibility, certainly up to Somerset anyway. But I don't agree there is far less uncertainty about glacial transport. One main reason is exactly what you yourself said: "How far inland? Still uncertain". If I go out in my local ploughed field I can pick up hundreds of pebbles in ten minutes and no two will be the same or from the same place, due to glacial transport. When I go in a ploughed field on Salisbury Plain, I can't. I'd need that explaining before I agreed there was a strong probability the bluestones were delivered by nature and not fetched from many miles away.
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Dec 14, 2008, 15:22
|
||
|
The builders of UK megalithic monuments always used stone that was locally available. Please define 'locally' (in the context of the period when Stonehenge was constructed).
|
|||
|
mountainman 90 posts |
Dec 15, 2008, 14:35
|
||
|
Quote: ....."not local and had to be brought to the site without the help of glaciation , particularly in major monuments . e.g. Stonehenge (sarsens ), Newgrange , Old Keig and possibly Brodgar . Since when did the sarsens at Stonehenge come from a long way off? HH Thomas (among many others) thought they had come from the neighbourhood, and I can't see any evidence to suggest that he was wrong on this one. The fact that Atkinson developed a great story for the sarsen transport doesn't mean it happened. Newgrange? Small white quartz stones from a long way off as "ornamental features" -- wouldn't have a problem with that being done by chaps with haversacks. Old Keig? Where's the evidence that the big stones are not erratics? The Orkney examples -- there are mentions of quarries in connection with the standing stones, but I'd like to have a look at these sites with reference to ice-movements / erratic distributions as well. At Brodgar, Renfrew thought that the stones had come from the ditch around the stones, and not from the so-called quarry. In the "The great stone circles project" (Antiquity 2005) there are lots of references to quarries, but somewhat surprisingly the archaeologists involved fail to refer to erratics at all.......... What do I mean by "local"? Thorpe and Williams-Thorpe (Antiquity 1991) looked at all of the UK sites and found that the megalith builders used stones from up to 2 km away quite often, but that there was no case of stones being carried more than 5 km. So let's refer to all of these sites as "using locally-sourced stones."
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 15, 2008, 16:17
|
||
|
mountainman wrote: Quote: ....."not local and had to be brought to the site without the help of glaciation , particularly in major monuments . e.g. Stonehenge (sarsens ), Newgrange , Old Keig and possibly Brodgar . Since when did the sarsens at Stonehenge come from a long way off? HH Thomas (among many others) thought they had come from the neighbourhood, and I can't see any evidence to suggest that he was wrong on this one. The fact that Atkinson developed a great story for the sarsen transport doesn't mean it happened. Newgrange? Small white quartz stones from a long way off as "ornamental features" -- wouldn't have a problem with that being done by chaps with haversacks. Old Keig? Where's the evidence that the big stones are not erratics? The Orkney examples -- there are mentions of quarries in connection with the standing stones, but I'd like to have a look at these sites with reference to ice-movements / erratic distributions as well. At Brodgar, Renfrew thought that the stones had come from the ditch around the stones, and not from the so-called quarry. In the "The great stone circles project" (Antiquity 2005) there are lots of references to quarries, but somewhat surprisingly the archaeologists involved fail to refer to erratics at all.......... What do I mean by "local"? Thorpe and Williams-Thorpe (Antiquity 1991) looked at all of the UK sites and found that the megalith builders used stones from up to 2 km away quite often, but that there was no case of stones being carried more than 5 km. So let's refer to all of these sites as "using locally-sourced stones." I had noted that you referred specifically to Britain where glaciation could be used to to explain movement of stones over much it's area and assumed that you would be aware of the movement of much bigger stones over much greater distances than we are talking about here , e.g. Baalbeck , Collosi of Memnon etc . There is no argument about these efforts and glaciation can't be involved so we do have precedents for the movement and quarrying of stones but maybe we shouldn’t expect too much from the occupants of our little island .However the point is the importation not the size or effort . Bringing something 5K no matter how big particularly when the same quality can be found locally is an important pointer to our understanding . Nevertheless some of the biggest stones at the Bru came from over 5km away .That haversack of quartz probably came 80 Km , that is what matters . The recumbent at Old Keig could be an erratic but if it is, it had been quarried before glaciation and would therefore be a unique example of Paleolithic masonry . Obviously builders of monuments use local material , but not all do .
|
|||
|
mountainman 90 posts |
Dec 15, 2008, 16:25
|
||
|
"The recumbent at Old Keig could be an erratic but if it is, it had been quarried before glaciation and would therefore be a unique example of Paleolithic masonry ." Sorry -- not with you on that one. Kindly explain.
|
| Pages: 39 – [ Previous | 1 … 34 35 36 37 38 39 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
