| View previous topic :: View next topic |
|
|
Grant
|
|
 |
|
But there are still only two explanations
1) early man transported these massive stones, or
2) the stones were carried by glacial action.
Obviously (2) must be the simplest explanation, and should be accepted unless there is evidence against it. And as Brian Johns says in his excellent blog, there are bluestones scatterered all over the plain, just as there would be if they were left by a glacier:
I've been reminded that there are many other bluestone occurrences on Salisbury Plain besides those mentioned in the last post. In the big OU study published in 1991 there are about 30 mentions of bluestone fragments / flakes / pieces found in locations outside Stonehenge.....
Are they all related to the working of bluestones at Stonehenge? That's very doubtful indeed -- as it is also doubtful that the fragments are all bits or roadstone or "surface litter." Many of the pieces are in barrow soil or fill -- and are not in positions where they might be placed if they were being treated with reverence because of some special "quality." |
But this explanation is just so bloody unglamorous. So much better to imagine our clever ancestors ingeniously transporting these stones from Wales.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
| Hatty wrote: | | Pulp History (on page 1 of the Sweet Track thread) wrote: | ... A quick research on peat growth shows from the TorvForsk Swedish Peat Research Foundation that peat grows on average at 0.5mm per year....
This means that the peat in this part of Somerset started growing 14000 years ago!! |
Does peat grow at a faster (or slower?) rate in a man-made setting?
|
Is that Swedish Peat at 0.5mm per year in Sweden? Devon Peat, further south, might be assumed to be warmer, and might be assumed to grow faster. Too many mights?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
People interested in the "Out Of America" theory might also be interested in Haplogroup Q
| Haplogroup Q is found predominantly in Central Siberia, Central Asia and among Native Americans. Approximately 90% of pre-Columbian Native Americans belonged to haplogroup Q, and all descend from the branch Q1a2a1 (L54), including various subclades of Q1a2a1a1 (M3) and Q1a2a1a2 (Z780). In Europe haplogroup Q is found chiefly in southern Sweden (5%), among Ashkenazi Jews (5%), and is various isolated pockets in central and Eastern Europe such as the Rhône-Alpes region of France, southern Sicily, southern Croatia, northern Serbia, parts of Poland and Ukraine. Šarić et al. (2013) also found 6.1% of haplogroup Q out of 412 samples from the island of Hvar in southern Croatia (accompanied by 2% of East Asian mtDNA haplogroup F). |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Celtic Sea Glacier as depicted by Brian John would be truly massive compared with anything today other than those in the Antarctic and it would presumably have produced a similarly impressive terminal moraine along the southern boundary. Here's a terminal moraine from NZ:
http://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/new_zealand/tasman_lake_2008/icons/41_terminal_moraine_fan.jpg
Yes there are some large stones but an awful lot of smaller stuff in a pronounced ridge. Even allowing for weathering, wouldn't it be geologically obvious today?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I hope you are all as excited about the Durrington Walls 'discovery' as I am. The arc of stones, judging from the aerial images, forms a cup shape facing East - towards the River Avon.
I think this is significant especially if orthodoxy is wrong and the ideas of the likes of Robert Langdon are correct....the megalithic water table and all that...and I would personally venture to suggest that the stones at least formed a marker, and possibly the harbour, from where the sarsen stones were unloaded to make Stonehenge.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
You'll have to explain how building a great arc of massive monoliths would assist with unloading sarsens. 'Forms a marker'? As you know I'm big on the general idea of megaliths being markers but you'll have to explain how an arc helps.
The fact they are all under the present land surface does however suggest that they were originally in a lake or similar body of water.. I don't know the geography but the bank of a river seems unlikely, though easily checked.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, but then you'll have to explain how the massive monoliths got there, before they could assist with unloading sarsens.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Please keep it serious, Borry, this is not an unimportant matter.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | You'll have to explain how building a great arc of massive monoliths would assist with unloading sarsens. 'Forms a marker'? As you know I'm big on the general idea of megaliths being markers but you'll have to explain how an arc helps.
The fact they are all under the present land surface does however suggest that they were originally in a lake or similar body of water.. I don't know the geography but the bank of a river seems unlikely, though easily checked. |
I think the arc follows the edge of a natural contours and within the arc, and between the arc and the River, the land falls - or would fall during the Mesolithic (I put megalithic by mistake on my previous post). I believe this cup could have been a harbour for unloading the Stonehenge stones, but I'll have to find a decent contour map of the area. I think the stones would have been floated on rafts down from the Marlborough Downs.
The Durrington stones could have had other functions as well of course, given the suspected astronomical allignments of many of these sights; they could also have had fires burning at their base; there are rather a lot for moorings and wooden posts would have been quite sufficient for that.
Sorry but I haven't read your book on megaliths yet, still have that to catch up on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Boreades wrote: | | Ah, but then you'll have to explain how the massive monoliths got there, before they could assist with unloading sarsens. |
I don't know, but I would expect to find the Sarsens are considerably larger, and heavier. Also we don't know whether the buried stones came from as far away, as yet.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nope, Boreades is right, they are of a similar height to the Sarsens. However, that in itself doesn't invalidate the possibility that any or all of these Sarsen type stones were floated downstream to a marked out harbour.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry but who in their right mind is going to stick a whole bunch of enormous stones (with a capitali cost running into the relative billions) just to unload some stuff which you can do with a coupla bolokes and a pulley.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Sorry but who in their right mind is going to stick a whole bunch of enormous stones (with a capitali cost running into the relative billions) just to unload some stuff which you can do with a coupla bolokes and a pulley. |
Yes it seems like overkill, but by the same token what possible reason could so many stones in the arc be used for?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
