|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Myths, truths and theories - Stonehenge |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
StoneGloves 1149 posts |
Sep 03, 2010, 19:03
|
||
The most amazing stones are those large ones in France. Better climate - bigger stones. Does that mean the summer was longer, so more time, or that the winter was more mild, so easier movement? Nobody has really considered it. Did we speak the same language as the prehistoric Bretons? And who represents the ancient race better - Depardieu (Mammothe) or Binoche (Chocolat)?
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Sep 03, 2010, 19:07
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: Well, just because someone can do something doesn't mean that they will do it. I disagree. The individual might not, but a member of their group, eventually, will : -) If it means enough to them people will always do something no matter how difficult or time consuming.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 04, 2010, 06:56
|
||
|
StoneGloves wrote: just because someone can do something doesn't mean that they will do it. The purpose of reconstructions isn't to show it was done, just that it could have been. Failed reconstructions like the Millenium project have been taken, too readily IMO, as evidence it couldn't be done. That project failed with a tiny bluestone(a fifth of what the Stonehengineers pulled and a fifteenth of some of the sarsens the ancients brought to Stonehenge) so it really shouldn't be used as evidence of anything.
|
|||
|
mountainman 90 posts |
Sep 04, 2010, 08:47
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: mountainman wrote: Hi folks -- first of all, can I explain that I didn't write that Western Mail piece. It claims I said many things that I didn't say -- in fact I spoke on the phone to a journalist, and she "put it into my own words", having actually misunderstood quite a lot...... If you want to know what I DO say, have a look at my two YouTube videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wEvLWkTBEc&feature=channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-f4c3F9iEaY&feature=channel re glacial deposits on or near Salisbury Plain, there is a discussion and a review of the evidence in "The Bluestone Enigma." Cheers Brian Hi MM, You say in your YouTube clip that there are 67 stones missing from Stonehenge if what the archo's say about the total numbers are to be believed. If you are correct in what you are saying that no socket holes have been discovered at all for any of these missing stones then of course the structure was never completed in the manner in which we have been led to believe. I didn't realise this and was hoping that others far more knowledgable than myself on Stonehenge were going to comment on this and either back you up or disagree with your findings. Anyone?
|
|||
|
mountainman 90 posts |
Sep 04, 2010, 08:56
|
||
|
This isn't the first time I've pointed out that the "empty half" seems to contain no "missing" stones and not even any proved sockets. Met with thunderous silence each time........ The only evidence I've been able to find is the resistivity work -- the scans show up "shadows" in some of the places where stones should / might have been, but these shadows are no more prominent than the shadows across most of the site outside the stone settings. There are no white blobs showing buried stones that aren't already counted in. Resistivity readings are not that easy to interpret, but apart from the pits we already know about, moisture changes, changes in soil density and thickness etc can account for the majority of the "anomalies".
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Sep 04, 2010, 09:32
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Littlestone wrote: It's an arrogance on our part to think the Bluestones could not have been moved manually from Wales Well, there are quite a few howling barbarians that use this forum that pulled the equivalent of three and a half bluestones up a hill not long ago so I'm sure they'll agree with you! Just dug out an old Daily Mail cutting (1997) showing the 'cotton reel' method of moving the stones from Wales to the henge. You have to hand it to people fir coming up with these ideas! At the time Dr Dick Parry believed that the stones were strapped into wooden cradles which acted as giant cotton reels with rope wound round and around them which rolled along the ground as you pulled on the rope (which was presumably added to to keep the whole thing rolling. He reckons that models of the cradles have been found inside the pyramids that were built around the same time. So there, now you know!!
|
|||
|
Resonox 604 posts |
Sep 04, 2010, 11:18
|
||
|
A little scenario satisfying both camps... Some bluestones had indeed been "abandoned" by glacial activity...someone thought they would look nice as additions(or starting points)to a large circle....Visitors came from far and wide to do whatever was done at this stone circle...One of these visitors noticed that similar rocks were natural features of where he had travelled from, so being of an enterprising bent proclaimed the stones as "special" and sold the mining rights to the circle builders, before retiring on the proceeds(it was his "Henge-fund") to set up a goat colony tax haven in Kent...Expiditions were sent to transport more of the stones to the circle....and the rest as they say is....pre-history.
|
|||
|
mountainman 90 posts |
Sep 04, 2010, 16:35
|
||
|
Resonox wrote: A little scenario satisfying both camps... Some bluestones had indeed been "abandoned" by glacial activity...someone thought they would look nice as additions(or starting points)to a large circle....Visitors came from far and wide to do whatever was done at this stone circle...One of these visitors noticed that similar rocks were natural features of where he had travelled from, so being of an enterprising bent proclaimed the stones as "special" and sold the mining rights to the circle builders, before retiring on the proceeds(it was his "Henge-fund") to set up a goat colony tax haven in Kent...Expiditions were sent to transport more of the stones to the circle....and the rest as they say is....pre-history. I like it! Much more reasonable than the Neolithic hospital nonsense, the home of the dead story, or the latest theory about the Neolithic concert hall......
|
|||
|
mountainman 90 posts |
Sep 04, 2010, 16:54
|
||
|
Littlestone said: It's an arrogance on our part to think the Bluestones could not have been moved manually from Wales... Sorry Littlestone -- but I do find this sort of argument rather feeble. Mike Pitts does it as well -- "I don't care what the evidence shows or does not show -- I know it in my bones that this is what they did. Trust me -- I'm an experienced archaeologist........" Hmmmm.... and I'm an experienced geomorphologist -- or doesn't that count? Is it an equal arrogance, or a lesser one, or a greater one, to think that the Irish Sea Glacier could not have carried the stones from West Wales? Let's not forget that the human transport theory was INVENTED by Herbert Thomas because he would not believe what the other geologists were telling him. And why is it that we NEED the human transport theory anyway? Well, I don´t, but a lot of people do seem to need it. Is it not even more magnificent to think of glacier ice playing a significant role in the Stonehenge story? Why do so many people have a problem with that?
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Sep 04, 2010, 17:22
|
||
|
Is it not even more magnificent to think of glacier ice playing a significant role in the Stonehenge story? Why do so many people have a problem with that? Some people might have a problem with that but I'm not one of them. Nor do I have a problem with imagining that the Bluestones were moved manually. But what about you? Are you saying, categorically, that the Bluestones could not have been moved manually from Preseli to Stonehenge?
|
| Pages: 11 – [ Previous | 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
