71 replies to this topic

[colin]

colin, on 19 October 2006, 15:11, said:

stonecarver, on 28 August 2006, 15:41, said:

Now we opened the discussion properly.... and I'm pleased somebody has noticed... that the 'bluestones'... only 'Appear' to be blue, and they were given that epithet by Antiquarians (their 'apparent' colour hasn't changed much if At All in the last couple of hundred years).

They were Not blue, when they were erected. They are not all the same type of stone. There are four main types of rock (at Stonehenge) which the antiquarians termed bluestones. They are:-

dolerites, spotted dolerite, rhyolite, volcanic ash.

Other stones (such as the 'Altar stone') are other types, such as sandstone.

In 1923, H.H. Thomas went to Wales in search of rocks which might match those at Stonehenge... and found them near Presli... and so the Welsh connection was underpinned. But was it really their source?

Not to put too fine a point on it... the single biggest source of 'bluestone' axes in the British Isles, Is Langdale in the Lake District. Now, there, we have volcanic ash (Langdale Tuff), which is Truly blue-grey in colour... and yes, the colour of That particular rock-type certainly was One of the reasons those axes were so highly prized, and distributed throughout Britain in the Neolithic.

Have we been looking in the wrong direction all this time? Were the bluestones in fact, from Cumbria? where all those rock-types outcrop (as well as in Wales)? and was Thomas a member of the secret order of Druids? (therefore his choice of Wales as the source of the bluestones might not be impartial?).

There are Dolerites found all over the world. But Geologists have identified the Bluestones at Stonehenge as originating from Preseli, either by glaciation or by man. The stones in my Quarry have been matched to 3 of the unspotted variety present at Stonehenge now.
In Welsh Bluestone translates as Careg Glas, glas can mean blue or green depending on context ie. green field or blue sky.my qiarry has many other coloured variations of the stones depending on extra minerals present ( olivine, augite,ferrous oxide) but the ones we polish are mainly green with flecks of white feldspar, siver alunminum sillicate and fool's gold (iron and copper pyrites) and very pretty they are too.
It seems very possible to me that the ancients also polished them to bring out their magic ( beauty ) . there are very few of our indigenous stones thst are this beautiful. particularly when large ones are polished, after all it is a type of granite.

There were axe factories in Preseli . for more info read N P Figgis, Prehistoric Preseli, From Attelier Productions, 2 Bontfaen forge, Machynllet, Powys, SY20 8RN

or visit my Website at www.stonehengestones.com

also http://news.bbc.co.u...ire/4753205.stm

Colin

[stonecarver]

Hi Colin,

can you tell us exactly which geologist has determined these stones are from Preseli and which scientific method they used (and where this is published). I guess you'll know...

It has recently been shown that a great many stone tools Previously believed to be bluestones from Wales have been misidentified. The methods used to determine stone provenancing have advanced somewhat recently, and many old specimens have been wrongly identified as being from Wales.

So - can you help and tell us who identified the stones as being from Preseli and what method they used please ???

[Anew]

Colin - hello,

I checked your BBC reference ... that's a very ambitious project.  But I think the regularity of the model is something you might want to return to.  Schematics in two of the books I have, ("Circles of Stone", p.138 and "Stonehenge Complete" p.280), make the Y and Z holes, in particular, look much less regimented than the model appears to show ... ... I'm mildly curious what ancient building methods you have in mind.

On the subject of Bluestones coming from Preseli, I think that likely: BBC Item: Stonehenge quarry site 'revealed'  Unfortunately, the BritArch piece referenced seems out of reach for the moment.

On the subject of analysis, I don't know if they've yet been done to everyone's satisfaction, though any information you have would be welcome.  Here's some of what I found:

Quote

Geochemistry, Sources and Transport of the Stonehenge Bluestones
O Williams-Thorpe & R S Thorpe

Stonehenge on Salisbury Plain, UK, is famous for its construction from large lintelled sarsen stones, and also because it has been proposed that some of its stones — the bluestones which are foreign to the geology of Salisbury Plain — were brought to the site by humans from a distant source in Preseli, South Wales. The bluestones include hard dolerites (mostly ‘spotted’) and rhyolites, and softer structurally unsuitable sandstones and basic tuffs. Chemical analysis of eleven dolerites originated at three sources in Preseli within a small area (ca. 2 km2), while the rhyolite monoliths are from four different sources including localities in northern Preseli and perhaps on the north Pembrokeshire coast, between 10 and 30 km apart.  Opaque mineralogy of the dolerites supports the conclusion of a Preseli source, while modal analysis of a sandstone fragment excavated at Stonehenge shows that it is not from the Cosheston or Senni Beds of South Wales, as has been suggested.

From the Proceedings of the British Academy, #77

Mr Thorpe then goes on to favor glacial deposition of the bluestones during the Anglian period, (about 400,000 years ago); but his glacial scenario is undermined, at least in one case, by the following:

Quote

Dating gives clue to Stonehenge

A scientific technique that can date rock is being used to throw light on one of the enduring mysteries of Stonehenge - how the monument's bluestones came to Wessex.  It now seems probable that the bluestones, which form an inner ring at Stonehenge, were quarried and brought by hand to Wessex from their outcrop in the Preseli Mountains of Pembrokeshire.  Some archaeologists have long been puzzled by the four-tonne stones, reluctant to believe that Stonehenge's prehistoric builders travelled over 200 miles to get them, when perfectly good rocks - such as the sarsens that form the monument's outer ring - were available nearby. Instead, it was thought the igneous bluestones must have been brought to Wessex by icesheets thousands of years earlier.  However, preliminary tests using chlorine-36 dating, conducted by David Bowen, Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Wales, Cardiff, have shown that at least one igneous rock at Stonehenge was first exposed to the air 14,000 years ago.  It must have been brought to the site by hand, Prof Bowen said, as no icesheets have reached Wessex since then. The rock fragment, though not a bluestone, was found by Prof RJC Atkinson in the 1950s and is now held in the Salisbury Museum.  In addition, chlorine-36 tests on the bluestone outcrop in South Wales have suggested that people quarried there 5,000-6,000 years ago - two millennia before the stones were erected in Wessex.

When a rock is first exposed to the atmosphere, by quarrying or erosion, it begins to acquire the isotope chlorine-36 at a rate that can be measured - thus allowing the first exposure of the rock to be dated.  Permission has been sought from English Heritage for a fragment of one of the Stonehenge bluestones themselves for testing. Only then will a conclusive date be established.

From: British Archaeology No. 1, February 1995

"Opaque minerology", "Modal analysis", "Chlorine-36" ... sounds like we've got science here.  And though it's not easy reading, why not toss this in a third time:

Quote

PRESELI DOLERITE BLUESTONES: AXE-HEADS, STONEHENGE MONOLITHS, AND OUTCROP SOURCES
OLWEN WILLIAMS-THORPE1, M.C. JONES2, P.J. POTTS1 AND P.C. WEBB1

Summary.  Chemical compositions and magnetic susceptibility data were compared for 12 dolerite bluestone implements including axes, axe-hammers and battle-axes, 11 Stonehenge monoliths (chemical data only), and potential source outcrops in Preseli, South Wales. Most of the studied artefacts are of spotted dolerite, a small number being unspotted dolerite. Bivariate graphs, discriminant analysis and t-tests were used singly and in combination to show, respectively, that the implements found at sites in England are mainly similar to Stonehenge monoliths, while the implements found in Wales have a variety of compositions and are much less similar to Stonehenge monoliths. The dichotomy between English and Welsh dolerite bluestone implements could be explained by exploitation of different Preseli outcrops or erratic assemblages derived from them. A small number of spotted dolerite implements have previously been shown to have chemical compositions atypical of and marginal to Preseli, suggesting the possibility of a source of spotted dolerite outside Preseli. Previously published analytical data in combination with the new implement/outcrop comparisons presented in this paper support derivation of the majority of analysed Stonehenge monoliths at one particular outcrop within the group of four identified by Thorpe et al. 15 years ago. Analysis of all the extant bluestone monoliths at Stonehenge (now possible using non-destructive methods) would allow progress in identifying monolith outcrop sources, and in understanding the links with the bluestone axe trade.

From: The Oxford Journal of Archaeology, vol. 25, Feb 2006

The following is easy reading:

Wikipedia on Carn Menyn

[stonecarver]

The British Academy Proceedings #77 (1992) do indeed suggest that the bluestones hail from Wales... but that's exactly the point - new techniques have been developed which indicate the stones have previously (ie as recently as 1992) been Misidentified.

If you read Wiliams-Thorpe et al carefully, you'll see...

"Bivariate graphs, discriminant analysis and t-tests were used singly and in combination to show, respectively, that the implements found at sites in England are mainly similar to Stonehenge monoliths, while the implements found in Wales have a variety of compositions and are much less similar to Stonehenge monoliths."

And they are not sure entirely what to make of it. (Basically we've had the wool pulled over our eyes?). Indeed, one of the articles just quoted (Williams-Thorpe) explaines the so-called Cosheton sandstone (supposedly from Wales), in fact is neither. The possibility that the bluestones are glacially-deposited erratics has also not been disproven.

The point is, there is a good case for the bluestones Not being brought from Wales by man in the Neolithic. There are other sources of dolerite ahd rhyolites in the Uplands (Pennines, Cumbria and Scotland), and they have Not been subjected to the tests that would tell us whether they are the source of the bluestones at Stonehenge.

Just because the Nearest place with these Types of rocks happens to be Wales, does Not mean they are derived from there by man. In fact, has anybody actually bothered to test whether they might be from Ireland?

[colin]

stonecarver, on 20 October 2006, 0:01, said:

Hi Colin,

can you tell us exactly which geologist has determined these stones are from Preseli and which scientific method they used (and where this is published). I guess you'll know...

It has recently been shown that a great many stone tools Previously believed to be bluestones from Wales have been misidentified. The methods used to determine stone provenancing have advanced somewhat recently, and many old specimens have been wrongly identified as being from Wales.

So - can you help and tell us who identified the stones as being from Preseli and what method they used please ???

I was going to quote from R SThorpe et al. but pebbletripper has done that, although, I refer to The Prehistoric society paper- Transport of the Preseli Bluestones 1991. also by Thorpe et al. Dr Thorpe is no longer with us but his wife Dr Williams- Thorpe of the Open University continues his work, both of them favour the glaciation theory. You would have to track her down to ask which methods were used.
Hovever I dont really get where you are coming from , are you saying that The Bluestones at Stonehenge do not come from Wales? If so you also need to quote your source and their methods if you want this thread to be scientific.Unfortunatly Science is also full of theory and so called facts are constantly being overturned
and of course beliefs long held are then called fact.
For myself I am happy just to be privileged enough to be surrounded by these magical stones and to work with them on a daily basisas I have done for many years now.
Colin

stonecarver, on 20 October 2006, 10:42, said:

The British Academy Proceedings #77 (1992) do indeed suggest that the bluestones hail from Wales... but that's exactly the point - new techniques have been developed which indicate the stones have previously (ie as recently as 1992) been Misidentified.

If you read Wiliams-Thorpe et al carefully, you'll see...

"Bivariate graphs, discriminant analysis and t-tests were used singly and in combination to show, respectively, that the implements found at sites in England are mainly similar to Stonehenge monoliths, while the implements found in Wales have a variety of compositions and are much less similar to Stonehenge monoliths."

And they are not sure entirely what to make of it. (Basically we've had the wool pulled over our eyes?). Indeed, one of the articles just quoted (Williams-Thorpe) explaines the so-called Cosheton sandstone (supposedly from Wales), in fact is neither. The possibility that the bluestones are glacially-deposited erratics has also not been disproven.

The point is, there is a good case for the bluestones Not being brought from Wales by man in the Neolithic. There are other sources of dolerite ahd rhyolites in the Uplands (Pennines, Cumbria and Scotland), and they have Not been subjected to the tests that would tell us whether they are the source of the bluestones at Stonehenge.

Just because the Nearest place with these Types of rocks happens to be Wales, does Not mean they are derived from there by man. In fact, has anybody actually bothered to test whether they might be from Ireland?

The kind of scientific analysis that you are talking about is very expensive, I have considered having it done until I found out how much!!
However The New Stonehenge Project will have an academic side with an educational trust fund set up to do all sorts of research into the Mysteries of Stonehenge. This should be up and running by 2010.

[colin]

Anew, on 20 October 2006, 7:43, said:

Colin - hello,

I checked your BBC reference ... that's a very ambitious project.  But I think the regularity of the model is something you might want to return to.  Schematics in two of the books I have, ("Circles of Stone", p.138 and "Stonehenge Complete" p.280), make the Y and Z holes, in particular, look much less regimented than the model appears to show ... ... I'm mildly curious what ancient building methods you have in mind.

On the subject of Bluestones coming from Preseli, I think that likely: BBC Item: Stonehenge quarry site 'revealed'  Unfortunately, the BritArch piece referenced seems out of reach for the moment.

On the subject of analysis, I don't know if they've yet been done to everyone's satisfaction, though any information you have would be welcome.  Here's some of what I found:

Quote

Geochemistry, Sources and Transport of the Stonehenge Bluestones
O Williams-Thorpe & R S Thorpe

Stonehenge on Salisbury Plain, UK, is famous for its construction from large lintelled sarsen stones, and also because it has been proposed that some of its stones — the bluestones which are foreign to the geology of Salisbury Plain — were brought to the site by humans from a distant source in Preseli, South Wales. The bluestones include hard dolerites (mostly ‘spotted’) and rhyolites, and softer structurally unsuitable sandstones and basic tuffs. Chemical analysis of eleven dolerites originated at three sources in Preseli within a small area (ca. 2 km2), while the rhyolite monoliths are from four different sources including localities in northern Preseli and perhaps on the north Pembrokeshire coast, between 10 and 30 km apart.  Opaque mineralogy of the dolerites supports the conclusion of a Preseli source, while modal analysis of a sandstone fragment excavated at Stonehenge shows that it is not from the Cosheston or Senni Beds of South Wales, as has been suggested.

From the Proceedings of the British Academy, #77

Mr Thorpe then goes on to favor glacial deposition of the bluestones during the Anglian period, (about 400,000 years ago); but his glacial scenario is undermined, at least in one case, by the following:

Quote

Dating gives clue to Stonehenge

A scientific technique that can date rock is being used to throw light on one of the enduring mysteries of Stonehenge - how the monument's bluestones came to Wessex.  It now seems probable that the bluestones, which form an inner ring at Stonehenge, were quarried and brought by hand to Wessex from their outcrop in the Preseli Mountains of Pembrokeshire.  Some archaeologists have long been puzzled by the four-tonne stones, reluctant to believe that Stonehenge's prehistoric builders travelled over 200 miles to get them, when perfectly good rocks - such as the sarsens that form the monument's outer ring - were available nearby. Instead, it was thought the igneous bluestones must have been brought to Wessex by icesheets thousands of years earlier.  However, preliminary tests using chlorine-36 dating, conducted by David Bowen, Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Wales, Cardiff, have shown that at least one igneous rock at Stonehenge was first exposed to the air 14,000 years ago.  It must have been brought to the site by hand, Prof Bowen said, as no icesheets have reached Wessex since then. The rock fragment, though not a bluestone, was found by Prof RJC Atkinson in the 1950s and is now held in the Salisbury Museum.  In addition, chlorine-36 tests on the bluestone outcrop in South Wales have suggested that people quarried there 5,000-6,000 years ago - two millennia before the stones were erected in Wessex.

When a rock is first exposed to the atmosphere, by quarrying or erosion, it begins to acquire the isotope chlorine-36 at a rate that can be measured - thus allowing the first exposure of the rock to be dated.  Permission has been sought from English Heritage for a fragment of one of the Stonehenge bluestones themselves for testing. Only then will a conclusive date be established.

From: British Archaeology No. 1, February 1995

"Opaque minerology", "Modal analysis", "Chlorine-36" ... sounds like we've got science here.  And though it's not easy reading, why not toss this in a third time:

Quote

PRESELI DOLERITE BLUESTONES: AXE-HEADS, STONEHENGE MONOLITHS, AND OUTCROP SOURCES
OLWEN WILLIAMS-THORPE1, M.C. JONES2, P.J. POTTS1 AND P.C. WEBB1

Summary.  Chemical compositions and magnetic susceptibility data were compared for 12 dolerite bluestone implements including axes, axe-hammers and battle-axes, 11 Stonehenge monoliths (chemical data only), and potential source outcrops in Preseli, South Wales. Most of the studied artefacts are of spotted dolerite, a small number being unspotted dolerite. Bivariate graphs, discriminant analysis and t-tests were used singly and in combination to show, respectively, that the implements found at sites in England are mainly similar to Stonehenge monoliths, while the implements found in Wales have a variety of compositions and are much less similar to Stonehenge monoliths. The dichotomy between English and Welsh dolerite bluestone implements could be explained by exploitation of different Preseli outcrops or erratic assemblages derived from them. A small number of spotted dolerite implements have previously been shown to have chemical compositions atypical of and marginal to Preseli, suggesting the possibility of a source of spotted dolerite outside Preseli. Previously published analytical data in combination with the new implement/outcrop comparisons presented in this paper support derivation of the majority of analysed Stonehenge monoliths at one particular outcrop within the group of four identified by Thorpe et al. 15 years ago. Analysis of all the extant bluestone monoliths at Stonehenge (now possible using non-destructive methods) would allow progress in identifying monolith outcrop sources, and in understanding the links with the bluestone axe trade.

From: The Oxford Journal of Archaeology, vol. 25, Feb 2006

The following is easy reading:

Wikipedia on Carn Menyn

Hi pebletripper
Yes it is a very ambitious project
We are now working towards getting planning permission on a site 3 miles from Stonehenge.
And yes I am aware of the X and Y holes and of course many other holes being of irregular positioning.
Mu design does not seek to replicate Stonehenge, I would have so many archeologist on my back if I did as I discovered in the early stages of the project .My design is a homage to Stonehenge by being a NEW STONEHENGE for the 21st century and beyond and is really a large piece of public art.
I have enlisted the very enthusistic co-operation from many fields of study relevevent to Stonehenge.
As to Ancient methods of engineering , our engineer is Mark Whitby of Whitby Bird who were the consultant engineers on the television series Secrets of lost Empires where he and a crew reaised 2 trilons and its linltes made of concrete. We shall of course be using our Bluestones but we are sourcing stones from around the world in order to make this an International project.
During the summer of 2009 we shall be enlisting various teams to do the hauling and stone raising( ie Archeologists, astronomers, engineers, architects ,the armed forces and other volunteers) even you perhaps!!
We shall be making another press statement just as soon as the site testing is complete and we can formally apply for planning permission.
Colin

[stonecarver]

Anybody can say anything at Wikipedia - it can hardly be said to be a reliable source.

The point about this thread is.... the bluestones might not be from Wales... and the most recent scientific methods show that bluestones have been Misidentified as coming from Wales previously.

There is every chance the bluestones come from elsewhere in the UK. Other sources of bluestones are the Pennines, Cumbria, Scotland and possibly ireland.

There is disagreement about whether or not the bluestones are glacially deposited... so it's 50/50 on that aspect of the argument. But, there is a very good chance, given the way Langdale Tuffs and other rock-types were circulated in the Neolithic, that they Might come from there...

[colin]

stonecarver, on 20 October 2006, 19:16, said:

Anybody can say anything at Wikipedia - it can hardly be said to be a reliable source.

The point about this thread is.... the bluestones might not be from Wales... and the most recent scientific methods show that bluestones have been Misidentified as coming from Wales previously.

There is every chance the bluestones come from elsewhere in the UK. Other sources of bluestones are the Pennines, Cumbria, Scotland and possibly ireland.

There is disagreement about whether or not the bluestones are glacially deposited... so it's 50/50 on that aspect of the argument. But, there is a very good chance, given the way Langdale Tuffs and other rock-types were circulated in the Neolithic, that they Might come from there...

I do think you need to get hold of the piece quoted  by Thorpe et al called
The Geological Sources and Transport of the Bluestones of Stonehenge, Wiltshire, UK
from Proceedings of the Prehistoric society 57.part2,1991.pp103-157.This study was done by the school of Earth Sciences in Birmingham backed uo by the University of Calgary Geology Dept is an exhaustive study which really does prove the Welsh origins of the Bluestones. It is all very well saying that the bluestones have been misidentified but you have not quoted your source, and " every Chance" is not a scientific statement. Of course you are entitled to your opinion just as some people believe that Merlin Magi8ked the stones from a mountain in Ireland!
So please which recent scientific studies , by whom and by what methods please?
Colion
this

[stonecarver]

You're right, I'll have to root out that recent report.

I Have the 1991 report thanks... and that's my point - we have now established there are new methods which are more accurate - science has moved a long at a pace since 1991, and the recent evidence indicates bluestones have been misidentified... but I will have to get hold of that report and quote it here.

And, again, it does not detract from the issue that the bluestones might be galacially deposited.

[Anew]

Quote

During the summer of 2009 we shall be enlisting various teams to do the hauling and stone raising( ie Archeologists, astronomers, engineers, architects ,the armed forces and other volunteers) even you perhaps!!

Thankyou, Colin, for that consideration ~ Anew the pebbletripper.


Stonecarver, I second Colin's request for evidence to back your assertions.
The items others produce are, of course, open for discussion...

Quote

Anybody can say anything at Wikipedia - it can hardly be said to be a reliable source.

A peer-reviewed study sponsored by Nature magazine found Wikipedia held up well.

Quote

Indeed, one of the articles just quoted (Williams-Thorpe) explaines the so-called Cosheton sandstone (supposedly from Wales), in fact is neither.

To a point. This analysis was done on a fragment.  It wasn't clarified whether the fragment matched the altar-stone, but, I admit, it's an interesting thing to consider.  They also didn't say it was absolutely not Welsh, what they said was: "it is not from the Cosheston or Senni Beds of South Wales".  In any case, as we were discussing earlier, had these ancients been able seafarers it mayn't have been too difficult for them to source the altar-stone at a place apart from the bluestones.

Quote

If you read Wiliams-Thorpe et al carefully, you'll see...

"Bivariate graphs, discriminant analysis and t-tests were used singly and in combination to show, respectively, that the implements found at sites in England are mainly similar to Stonehenge monoliths, while the implements found in Wales have a variety of compositions and are much less similar to Stonehenge monoliths."

Did something give you the impression I did not..?  I let it wait.

To provide some background, let's continue that quote: "The dichotomy between English and Welsh dolerite bluestone implements could be explained by exploitation of different Preseli outcrops or erratic assemblages derived from them."  Back in a moment 'cause that's the interesting part.  In fairness, though, it goes on to say: "A small number of spotted dolerite implements have previously been shown to have chemical compositions atypical of and marginal to Preseli, suggesting the possibility of a source of spotted dolerite outside Preseli."  This would be implements, not monoliths, not yet, (testing is incomplete), leaving the door open for the Cumbrian axe trade, whose product, at least, could reasonably have been present.

Now: In light of what's been said above ... it looks as though someone was selective, I suggest.  The Preselians, or the Salsburians, or both, chose the export stone; while the Welsh in general were free to use what was at hand -- (possibly to its exclusion).

I did a little bit of webbing about for Carn Menyn, or Carn Meini -- and came up with a distinctive feature:
The Modern Antiquarian on Carn Menyn
The Modern Antiquarian on the 'Stone River'
I think it was that stone river that did the trick.  "A place where the stones flow like water."

So to roll this back into what was being proposed earlier, they, (may have), sourced the raw stone from Carn Menyn, (Meini), and its environs, brought it 'round by boat to a thriving axe-factory, (bluestone fragments are being found at the Stonehenge Cursus), and held a fine array of monoliths at the temple in demonstration of its power, magic and wealth.

[Nigel]

MissD, on 31 August 2006, 18:42, said:

if they can expend the effort to drag those ginourmous sarcens, shape them and raise them, then  I can easliy see them dragging stones from wales too. Give then sizes of the trilithons, particularly the grand trilithon, I would imagine that the effort expended on them both would have been pretty much equal.

Quite. Which is the greater feat, moving 4 tonners 140 miles or 40 tonners 18? The latter, IMO. Yet the moving of the bluestones is widely associated with Stonehenge and the moving of the sarsens less so. That's the internet for you...

And Bucky... "It wouldn't be surprising if the "bluestone" ring was an existing ring elsewhere before it was moved to Stonehenge. And was appropriated as a spoil of conquest, or assimilation, or as a gift of an important tribe, or who knows what? In other words, the stones might have been important to the Stonehenge builders for other reasons than their composition. Think social as well as physical."

Bullseye sir! You could also add we might be looking at a "portable temple" or two of them, brought by migrants. On balance though, it pleases me to think the sarsens were nicked from a pre-existing circle at Avebury as an act of cruel domination by conquerors - and maybe they made the Aveburyites do the hard work....

Then there's the (possible) fragment of bluestone recovered from Silbury Hill... what's that all about?

[stonecarver]

Moving the much heavier sarsens from Marlborough is definitely the more difficult task... 4 ton rocks are one thing, but 34 ton rocks is quite another.

Incidentally, the oldest legends about the bluestones is that they came from Ireland, Not Wales... it wasn't until 1923 that somebody suggested they were from Wales...

Historia Regium Britanniae written by Geoffrey of Monmouth in 1136 AD is the first recorded historical reference to Stonehenge. In it Geoffrey states unequivocally that Uther Pendragon went to Ireland with an army, defeated the Irish army and stole the stones from Mount Killaraus, from where they were brought back to Wiltshire and re-erected in their present location c 485 AD.

[colin]

Anew, on 22 October 2006, 2:26, said:

Quote

During the summer of 2009 we shall be enlisting various teams to do the hauling and stone raising( ie Archeologists, astronomers, engineers, architects ,the armed forces and other volunteers) even you perhaps!!

Thankyou, Colin, for that consideration ~ Anew the pebbletripper.


Stonecarver, I second Colin's request for evidence to back your assertions.
The items others produce are, of course, open for discussion...

Quote

Anybody can say anything at Wikipedia - it can hardly be said to be a reliable source.

A peer-reviewed study sponsored by Nature magazine found Wikipedia held up well.

Quote

Indeed, one of the articles just quoted (Williams-Thorpe) explaines the so-called Cosheton sandstone (supposedly from Wales), in fact is neither.

To a point. This analysis was done on a fragment.  It wasn't clarified whether the fragment matched the altar-stone, but, I admit, it's an interesting thing to consider.  They also didn't say it was absolutely not Welsh, what they said was: "it is not from the Cosheston or Senni Beds of South Wales".  In any case, as we were discussing earlier, had these ancients been able seafarers it mayn't have been too difficult for them to source the altar-stone at a place apart from the bluestones.

Quote

If you read Wiliams-Thorpe et al carefully, you'll see...

"Bivariate graphs, discriminant analysis and t-tests were used singly and in combination to show, respectively, that the implements found at sites in England are mainly similar to Stonehenge monoliths, while the implements found in Wales have a variety of compositions and are much less similar to Stonehenge monoliths."

Did something give you the impression I did not..?  I let it wait.

To provide some background, let's continue that quote: "The dichotomy between English and Welsh dolerite bluestone implements could be explained by exploitation of different Preseli outcrops or erratic assemblages derived from them."  Back in a moment 'cause that's the interesting part.  In fairness, though, it goes on to say: "A small number of spotted dolerite implements have previously been shown to have chemical compositions atypical of and marginal to Preseli, suggesting the possibility of a source of spotted dolerite outside Preseli."  This would be implements, not monoliths, not yet, (testing is incomplete), leaving the door open for the Cumbrian axe trade, whose product, at least, could reasonably have been present.

Now: In light of what's been said above ... it looks as though someone was selective, I suggest.  The Preselians, or the Salsburians, or both, chose the export stone; while the Welsh in general were free to use what was at hand -- (possibly to its exclusion).

I did a little bit of webbing about for Carn Menyn, or Carn Meini -- and came up with a distinctive feature:
The Modern Antiquarian on Carn Menyn
The Modern Antiquarian on the 'Stone River'
I think it was that stone river that did the trick.  "A place where the stones flow like water."

So to roll this back into what was being proposed earlier, they, (may have), sourced the raw stone from Carn Menyn, (Meini), and its environs, brought it 'round by boat to a thriving axe-factory, (bluestone fragments are being found at the Stonehenge Cursus), and held a fine array of monoliths at the temple in demonstration of its power, magic and wealth.

Hi again
There are a great deal of variations amongst the stones from the Preseli  area. The Spotted Dolerite from the Carn Meini area is quite different from the unpsotted found in the Carn Wen area. each type of stone has different uses. The Spotted type breaks up eisier owing to the size of the crystals whereas the unspotted does not, therefore making better usable tools rather than ceremonial usage. In fact the Axe factory in Preseli was located near the south eastern outcrops which are unspotted ( read N P Figgis Prehistoric Preseli). The Ryolite from Carnalw area has been used for building work. Until recently the unspotted variety was broken up and used locally as road chipppings!!! Preseli is covered in Bluestone roads.
There has recently been a find near Milford Haven of a prehistoric wooden boat by the National Grid archeologists and within this boat some stone rings have been found. I know from personal experience that Bluestone can be made into rings so because of the proximity of the find we are hoping that they are bluestone. This boat would have been capable of transporting bluestones. We know from previous experiments that getting a stone from Preseli to Milford [The river Cleddau rises in the Preselis and flows to Milford, also the cocheston sandstone area) is easy. As part of our NEW STONEHENGE project we have been approached by an engineer who wants to replicate the Ferriby boat and then bring a bluestone on it to the river Avon point at the end of Stonehenges Avenue which is near our site . This is one of many experiments that we hope that our project will initiate.

[Anew]

Nigel, on 22 October 2006, 4:47, said:

Quite. Which is the greater feat, moving 4 tonners 140 miles or 40 tonners 18? The latter, IMO. Yet the moving of the bluestones is widely associated with Stonehenge and the moving of the sarsens less so. That's the internet for you...

And Bucky... "It wouldn't be surprising if the "bluestone" ring was an existing ring elsewhere before it was moved to Stonehenge. And was appropriated as a spoil of conquest, or assimilation, or as a gift of an important tribe, or who knows what? In other words, the stones might have been important to the Stonehenge builders for other reasons than their composition. Think social as well as physical."

Bullseye sir! You could also add we might be looking at a "portable temple" or two of them, brought by migrants. On balance though, it pleases me to think the sarsens were nicked from a pre-existing circle at Avebury as an act of cruel domination by conquerors - and maybe they made the Aveburyites do the hard work....

Then there's the (possible) fragment of bluestone recovered from Silbury Hill... what's that all about?

Stonehenge -- on the road.    "Here it comes, Mother!"
They built an enormous wooden armature about the whole thing and tipped it on its side.

I'm leaning toward it being an economic center, with Avebury the spiritual center, in the same paleo-state.  Rather a Tokyo-Kyoto arrangement.  As you will probably remember, I had considered the possibility of cruelty and enslavement; but now think the land was generous enough at the time that society as a whole was not caught up in this too deeply or too often.  Also, with slaves come slaveowners -- and these like nice personal monuments and grave goods.  To my understanding, that kind of thing picked up in the bronze age, when people settled down.

As to the different challenges of moving the stones, we're covering the "if by sea" angle pretty thoroughly here, I understand we both find it plausible.  If by land? If they were able to build sewn-wood boats at the time; addressing the task of the sarsens with a sewn-wood Merlinwheel of the Type 3 variety, (link), seems within their competence; and I hope their imagination.

But even here there is the chance that they brought them, by grunt and by shove, (if not by 'rowing'), to the Kennet, and thence to the sea, the channel, and their Avon.  The twists and turns of the stream would have been a pain, but they might have guided a barge with poles and ropes... if.

Silbury's bluestone fragment..?  It seemed like I was supposed to snap at that.  

stonecarver, on 22 October 2006, 6:24, said:

Incidentally, the oldest legends about the bluestones is that they came from Ireland, Not Wales... it wasn't until 1923 that somebody suggested they were from Wales...

Historia Regium Britanniae written by Geoffrey of Monmouth in 1136 AD is the first recorded historical reference to Stonehenge. In it Geoffrey states unequivocally that Uther Pendragon went to Ireland with an army, defeated the Irish army and stole the stones from Mount Killaraus, from where they were brought back to Wiltshire and re-erected in their present location c 485 AD.

Okay

colin, on 22 October 2006, 9:34, said:

Hi again
There are a great deal of variations amongst the stones from the Preseli  area. The Spotted Dolerite from the Carn Meini area is quite different from the unpsotted found in the Carn Wen area. each type of stone has different uses. The Spotted type breaks up eisier owing to the size of the crystals whereas the unspotted does not, therefore making better usable tools rather than ceremonial usage. In fact the Axe factory in Preseli was located near the south eastern outcrops which are unspotted ( read N P Figgis Prehistoric Preseli). The Ryolite from Carnalw area has been used for building work. Until recently the unspotted variety was broken up and used locally as road chipppings!!! Preseli is covered in Bluestone roads.
There has recently been a find near Milford Haven of a prehistoric wooden boat by the National Grid archeologists and within this boat some stone rings have been found. I know from personal experience that Bluestone can be made into rings so because of the proximity of the find we are hoping that they are bluestone. This boat would have been capable of transporting bluestones. We know from previous experiments that getting a stone from Preseli to Milford [The river Cleddau rises in the Preselis and flows to Milford, also the cocheston sandstone area) is easy. As part of our NEW STONEHENGE project we have been approached by an engineer who wants to replicate the Ferriby boat and then bring a bluestone on it to the river Avon point at the end of Stonehenges Avenue which is near our site . This is one of many experiments that we hope that our project will initiate.

Thanks for the local information.  Here are a couple links connected with what we've been discussing:

PRESELI DOLERITE BLUESTONES by Olwen Williams-Thorpe et. al.  (This is going to take me some time to read.)

BBC item -- Bronze Age canoe stops pipeline
If this is the canoe you mean, I'm certain a monolith would have sunk it.  Even covered over, and as part of a trimaran, it comes up a little small.  Granite is said to be about three times as heavy as water, so if you have, say, a 'light' 3-ton stone, it comes to about .9 cubic meters.  To achieve neutral buoyancy, (absent the wood's natural floatation, which, for oak, is rather low), one would need a displacement of 2.7 cubic meters. The volume's not there.

I do agree the Ferriby boat seems capable.  Lecture notes for the Ferriby Boat & http://www.ferribyboats.co.uk/

On a related subject: They may have imported Welsh-made axes.  But if they did, the question of why Stonehenge bluestone tools seem broadly distinct from the Welsh could only be answered, (my opinion), a: insufficient evidence; or b: the Welsh factory/factories in question was/were specifically, or primarily, for export.  The latter seems more probable.

On the topic of bluestone work in the Stonehenge area, Woodhenge is turning up chips as well, though the opinion of archaeologists is that their distribution is not reflective of the practice of axe-making.
http://www.eternalidol.com/

[stonecarver]

Yes, I Really need to find that article I mentioned, I concede entirely on that point - it was something I read this month, so it must be here somewhere (I have about 60 new papers and I know it's amongst them somewhere).

The 'Stone river' point is interesting.... because the scree slope created by the Great Langdale axe 'factory' in Cumbria is exactly that - a river of stone (as you can see in the photo taken by Andrew Leaney).

As any mountaineer will explain (I am one), if you step on a steep scree slope such as this, it moves underfoot and you travel downwards very rapidly (if you are not experiences in crossing them). The fact is, it behaves a little like a river...

The scale of the Langdale axe 'factories' is huge - as this wonderful photograph shows....

http://www.harwoodon...om_the_band.jpg[/img]