|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge and its Environs » The bluestone debate |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
mountainman 90 posts |
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.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Edited Dec 17, 2008, 12:52
Dec 17, 2008, 12:25
|
||
|
"until somebody comes up with a killer fact." Would a video do? ;) I would have thought the lack of a huge pile of leftovers needs explaining before you can say there's no evidence of human transport. Apart from small chippings there's not a lot left and no holes. I don't think your suggestion they were all used in the monument or as mauls or packing explains it adequately - there'd be just too much wouldn't there?
|
|||
|
mountainman 90 posts |
Dec 17, 2008, 13:42
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: mountainman wrote: "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. The recumbent was quarried . If it was an erratic too then the quarying would have had to have been pre Holocene and therefore before any evidence of human habitation/quarrying in that area . Sorry -- your certainty is impressive, but I still don't follow you and am still waiting for you to explain....
|
|||
|
mountainman 90 posts |
Dec 17, 2008, 13:49
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: "until somebody comes up with a killer fact." Would a video do? ;) I would have thought the lack of a huge pile of leftovers needs explaining before you can say there's no evidence of human transport. Apart from small chippings there's not a lot left and no holes. I don't think your suggestion they were all used in the monument or as mauls or packing explains it adequately - there'd be just too much wouldn't there? A video of some chaps hauling stones to show that it was possible? I could show you another video of the Millennium Stone fiasco, to show that it wasn't possible. Back to circular reasoning again -- if we can show that there was a way for it to be done on a nice flat piece of Salisbury Plain, then it probably was done. Of course, it would be just as circular to argue that because the Millennium Stone project failed, therefore long-distance stone transport was impossible! But that was a much closer replication of the real world situation, with hills, valleys, wooded terrain, and rough sea -- so I would put more store by it than the Stonehenge "engineering" experiments.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Dec 17, 2008, 14:02
|
||
|
No, asking if a video would do was just a leg pull, a reference to the fact you seem rather partial to the opposite theory. More to the point, what do you think about the missing Stonehenge sarsen drift?
|
|||
Moth 5236 posts |
Dec 17, 2008, 14:17
|
||
|
mountainman wrote: tiompan wrote: mountainman wrote: "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. The recumbent was quarried . If it was an erratic too then the quarying would have had to have been pre Holocene and therefore before any evidence of human habitation/quarrying in that area . Sorry -- your certainty is impressive, but I still don't follow you and am still waiting for you to explain.... See http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/forum/?thread=34375&message=634951 I think. love Moth
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 17, 2008, 14:30
|
||
|
Moth wrote: mountainman wrote: tiompan wrote: mountainman wrote: "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. The recumbent was quarried . If it was an erratic too then the quarying would have had to have been pre Holocene and therefore before any evidence of human habitation/quarrying in that area . Sorry -- your certainty is impressive, but I still don't follow you and am still waiting for you to explain.... See http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/forum/?thread=34375&message=634951 I think. love Moth Thanks Moth , I knew it was somewhere . To be fair it does get a bit cluttered on this thread ,a bit like a sarsen drift maybe .
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Dec 17, 2008, 15:21
|
||
|
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. Ehm... actually it's Mike Pitts' opinion. Please see - Hengeworld by Mike Pitts (pp136). ISBN 0-7126-7954-5 (or are you disagreeing with him as well ;-)
|
|||
|
mountainman 90 posts |
Dec 17, 2008, 21:49
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: 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. Ehm... actually it's Mike Pitts' opinion. Please see - Hengeworld by Mike Pitts (pp136). ISBN 0-7126-7954-5 (or are you disagreeing with him as well ;-) Why should I agree with Mike Pitts's opinion any more than anybody else's? He's welcome to say what he thinks, but I think I'll stick with HHT on this one.
|
|||
|
mountainman 90 posts |
Dec 17, 2008, 21:55
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: No, asking if a video would do was just a leg pull, a reference to the fact you seem rather partial to the opposite theory. More to the point, what do you think about the missing Stonehenge sarsen drift? Fair enough! Actually I could send you a nice video of a glacier in action. Tends to be a bit boring, since the thing only moves at about a km per year ----- but it gets there in the end. That's only two centuries needed to get the bluestones from Preseli to Salisbury Plain! What do you mean by "sarsen drift"? Do you mean a scatter of sarsen stones? If so, we aren't going to get anywhere because we have no way of knowing how dense this scatter might have been, or what components it might have had. These are after all residuals "let down" onto the chalk surface after many millions of years of erosion. In some areas there might have been big concentrations, and in others none at all. See the articles by Somerfield and Goudie, and assorted other guys including Chris Green.
|
| Pages: 39 – [ Previous | 1 … 34 35 36 37 38 39 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
