58 replies to this topic

[stonecarver]

I think a good few archaeologists and geologists have stated the bluestones were transported to the Stonehenge area bu glacial action haven't they? they certainly weren't imported from overseas, that much is clear

[Pete G]

Aubrey Burl started the claim they were glacial but most archaeologists I know don't go along with this.
Julian Richards and Mike Pitts in particular do not believe it.
I haven't seen any convincing evidence so far.
Anyone know of a single bluestone erratic between Wales and Wiltshire?
PeteG

[stonecarver]

Quote

..."the Bulford Down Stone wasn't bought to the area from the Marlborough downs but was naturaly deposted nearby. This has Huge implications as it means the Stonehenge sarsens may have come from a valley on Salisbury plain."...

Says it all really...

[Pete G]

The Bulford stone is a SARSEN you were claiming BLUESTONES were glacial erratics.
Do you know the difference?

[stonecarver]

I was merely pointing out that Some stones at Stonehenge were transported glacially.... if you didn't read my previous post properly, then tough....

There is No  Archaeological evidence whatsoever that stones at Stonehenge were transported there from Wales.

Just a point of interest, on that note, do You have any vested interests (ie fiscal not academic), in subscribing to the view that stones were transported to Stonhenge from Wales?

Do you have connections with any stone industry? that might profit from the creation of a fake new Stonehenge?

Just questions that are pertinent given your absolute belief in this theory in the absence of any Real evidence... whilst I... am purely an archaeologist... and I can tell you, a great many archaeologists think that the stones were transported glacially... on the basis of the geological And archaeological evidence.

[Pete G]

>Do you have connections with any stone industry? that might profit from the creation of a fake new Stonehenge?

None whatsoever

>a great many archaeologists think that the stones were transported glacially...

and yet there is not a shred of evidence to support this anywhere.

[kevin.b]

Stonecarver,
                 Something I wanted to comment on from your first post on this thread .
You said to severus in relation to him asking about how how did people see each others circles etc, that how many local people saw adjoining churchs, never mind churchs at opposite ends of the land, or something like that ?
The vast majority of churchs were designed and built under the central authority of norman clergy sited in Paris.
Do you feel there may have been a similer central authority in the time of circle construction ?
Kevin

[senua]

Well i'm no archaeologist and no geologist but have an interest in both.

From reading various books/articles I get the impression that archaeologists are divided over weather the bluestones are glacial or not.

In Stonehenge: Mysteries of the Stones and Landscape by David Souden, it mentions research done to see if the stones were glacial.  Can't remember the details, something to do with looking for erratics in river gravels.  If anyone has this book they may be able to find the relevant page and find out who did the research.

In A Guide to the Stone Circles of Britain, Ireland and Brittany, by Aubrey Burl,  it's stated that the the bluestones are erractics.  Doe'snt give a reason why.

If I remember rightly,  there would have to have been an Ice sheet over the area of Stonehenge for glacial erractics to end up there.  So if  no ice sheet surely there would be no erractics.

I'm not sure what the furthest extent of the ice sheets was.  From memory the southern half of Britain wasn't covered but  there were a number of advances and retreats of the ice sheets.  It depends if any of the earlier glaciations came as far as Salisbury plain.

Have to read up on the Pleistocene again.

[Pete G]

There is also the mystery of the Avenue.
It takes a strange route to the river if it was for processional purposes but is the easiest route to drag stones from the river.
Bluestone chippings can be found along the route of the avenue, I have found several myself.
To me this indicates that the Bluestones were dragged from the river hence they had been transported from elsewhere.
For details of the ice sheets check this site out
http://www.shef.ac.u...is/britice.html
there is a Pdf at the bottom showing the extent of the icesheets.
PeteG

[kevin.b]

Does anyone know if the river was deep enough to allow a vessel to sail
from the severn estuary in ancient times?, to near SH
I would have presumed there would be shallow gravel beds along its length?
Modern man has overcome this with weirs, and of course the Kennet and Avon canal.
Kevin

[stonecarver]

The map you linked to is for the last glacial ice sheet....

There have been many, many galciations of the British Isles, and as a geologist will explain, just because the last one had it's limits on the map shown... does not mean that the stones were not transported in an earlier Glacial episode... There are plenty of instances of particular rock types being deposited all over the place, but that's geology, and maybe not as Fantastic as some Theory about the transportation of stones by man.

And, yes, it's debated... but where is the evidence for human involvement and the transportation of the stones? There is None.

Alluvial action can account fot the flakes you have found Pete... I recommend you have a look at some of the very latest papers on this interesting subject (which spans geography And archaeology).

You Could try...

Hosfield R. and Chambers J. 2004: River Gravels and Flakes: New Experiments in Site Formation, Stone Tool Transportation and Transformation.

for starters,

And whether these flakes look man-made to you or not, even trained archaeologists have some difficulty in identifying that, and unless you have studied Lithics specifically and spend an awful lot of time comparting pseudomorphs with man made chips of stone, you can easily be mistaken. It has been demonstrated that most archaeologists Cannot identify man-made debitage (waste flakes, as opposed to manufactured tools). Try reading :

Young D. and Bamforth D. B. 1990: On the Macroscopic Identification of Used Flakes, Am. Antiq., Vol. 55, No. 2, (April 1990), 403-409.

You should unsderstamd that that just because you find some flakes of a particular stone type near a monument  it does not mean that they were placed there by man (and as you say, you used a non-random sampling method by looking in the proximity of a particular aecrhaeological feature, which creates a bias in favour of your theory, and amounts to what academics call 'Cherry picking', ie using evidence which is not impartial).

There  is however, excellent evidence for the glacial deposition of rocks

The question remains... What evidence is there the human transportation of stones to Stonehenge from Wales? None what so ever.

[Pete G]

>The question remains... What evidence is there the human transportation of stones to Stonehenge from Wales? None what so ever.

The question remains... What evidence is there of glacial transportation of stones to Stonehenge from Wales? None what so ever.

The bluestone flakes I have found are On the avenue.
I have looked in other places around the landscape for many years and found nothing similar.
When I find anything I take it to Josh Pollard at Bristol Uni who advises me.

[Pete G]

There is this strange anomoly of a piece of Bluestone found ontop Silbury by Atkinson.
http://66.102.9.104/...k&ct=clnk&cd=20
Because of lack of space, Silbury Hill must remain in
the footnotes. It stands between the living and the ancestors in the same way as Stonehenge 1 & 2,
relating to the Silbury’s particular form is unique hut its placing is not. The piece of bluestone from its summit
(Whittle 1997: 21) hints at the intriguing possibility of bluestones having been set up here

see also http://216.239.59.10...k&cd=8&ie=UTF-8

[stonecarver]

Guess you didn't bother reading those articles then Pete?

and no response about the multiple glaciation events...

and for every archaeologist who sits on one side of the argument, there is another eminient one who sits on the other.

You just don't get it do you?

The jury is Out on this one, and there is no Consensus of opinion - it really Is That Simple....