Page 6 of 10

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:52 am
by Digit
It was Monk, but if you read the articles I posted you will see that new info caused it to be resurrected.
The idea was pooh poohed originally because people did not read the first article that was published back in the twenties, the press took up the story and most people read that instead, and as I have been pointing out for some time none of the supporters of glacial action is suggesting that there was a moraine on the plain :lol: or that the stones were dropped in their holes by the ice!
The first article I posted refers to a glacier from across the Irish sea, I was unaware that there had been a push from that direcction.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 4:52 pm
by Forum Monk
Digit was this 1992 source the article you referenced?

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. This variety of source implies selection of material from a mixed (glacial) source, not at a carefully human-chosen outcrop. Glacial erratic material from south-west Wales has been identified as far east as Cardiff, and early (Anglian) glaciation of the Bristol/Bath area is indicated by an erratic find and glacial landforms. The apparent lack of glacial erratics between Bristol and Stonehenge (except perhaps for the Boles Barrow boulder) and in rivers draining Salisbury Plain, is consistent with the irregular deposition of ‘free’ boulders at the edge of extensive ice sheets. Bluestone fragments on Salisbury Plain without clear archaeological context, and pieces incorporated, sometimes apparently accidentally, in monuments of Neolithic age onwards (some predating the bluestone erections at Stonehenge) may be remnants of erratics. Clearance of boulders from Salisbury Plain for agricultural purposes is clearly described by the geologist J. A. de Luc, and a boulder consistent in appearance with an erratic was found at Stonehenge in the 1920s.

It is concluded that the bluestones of Stonehenge were available locally to the builders, and were transported from south Wales not by humans, but by glacial activity of perhaps the Anglian period (ca. 400,000 years BP) or earlier. This conclusion has prompted re-examination of other suggestions of long-distance transport of megaliths. The sarsen stones at Stonehenge need not have been brought from 30 km to the north as has been suggested, since recent surveys show small concentrations of sarsens near Stonehenge, the remnant of boulders largely cleared during 18th–19th centuries. Calculations of the manpower required to construct Stonehenge need to be re-assessed in view of the absence of long-distance stone transport. Other megaliths in Britain and in northern Europe show no evidence for stone transport of greater than ca. 5 km, and reveal a preference for use of erratics in some glaciated areas. In at least some cases the availability of stone has dictated the location of the monuments. It is therefore inappropriate to interpret the positions of megaliths in terms of social or economic territories without first examining the geological constraints on their siting.

PBA 77, 133–161 © The British Academy 1992

More recent studies have confirmed the quarry hypothesis as far as I know.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 5:07 pm
by Digit
Oh Lord Monk! Originally the British Academy. Something I stored during my discussion with you know who. I read something the other day with a 2007 ref.
I'll take a look tomorrow and see if I can find the original from Google.
Mind you Monk, you don't get much better than the BA.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 5:10 pm
by Digit
Here's one to be going on with Monk.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 5:25 pm
by Forum Monk
Rather than quote a link, just paste it straight in the reply like this: ... cier.shtml

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 5:35 pm
by Digit

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:01 pm
by Digit ... ries/pba77

There you are Monk, but another group also writing for the BA are arguing that man moved them all the way from Wales. You pays your money and you takes your choice.
I 'm still reading articles that state that glacial action could not have been the mover because there is no way a glacier reached the Plain and with the right number of stone. Trouble is I don't know of anyone making such a claim.
That seems as likely as the idea that Merlin moved 'em. :twisted:

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:26 am
by Forum Monk
Digit wrote:I 'm still reading articles that state that glacial action could not have been the mover because there is no way a glacier reached the Plain and with the right number of stone. Trouble is I don't know of anyone making such a claim.

What claim are you speaking of, Digit. The claim they were moved by men or glaciers. Seems people are making both claims. I'm confused about your claims as well.

Seems the stones have been tested to basically come from one of three distinct quarrying sites near Presali where another stone megalith exists, although lesser known:

Digit wrote:That seems as likely as the idea that Merlin moved 'em.

According to wiki ... in_Britain

The bluestones at Stonehenge were placed there during the third phase of construction at Stonehenge around 2600 BC. It is assumed that there were about 80 of them originally, but this has never been proven. The stones weigh about 4 tons each. They are believed to have been brought from the Preseli Hills, about 250 miles away in Wales, either through glaciation (erratic theory) or through humans organizing their transportation. If a glacier transported the stones, then it must have been the Irish Sea Glacier. Recently the archaeological find of the Boscombe Bowmen has been cited in support of the latter theory, but there is absolutely nothing, in the opinion of some geologists, to connect the finds with Wales in preference to any other European area of Palaeozoic rocks. Preseli Bluestone dolerite axe heads have been found around the Preseli Hills as well, indicating that there was a population who knew how to work with the stones (see N P Figgis Prehistoric Preseli). There is also a legend of Merlin having miraculously transported the stones himself.

There's the mention of Merlin again.

It looks very much to me, the evidence is stacking up in favor of the men carried the stones, theory. It seems early man had no problem transporting huge stones so why do we scratch or heads and think there is no way they could have done it?

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:11 am
by Minimalist
Again....there are traditions of 'stones flying through the air' in Egypt, Peru and Nan Madol. Mass delusion?

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:26 am
by Digit
You're not the first to misunderstand the original statement Monk, nor mine.
They argument in support of glacial action rests to a large degree on the erratics in the Bristol and Cardiff areas of England and Wales. Nobody, as far as I'm aware, has claimed that glacial action moved anything to Salisbury Plain, only that glacial action moved the stones away from the Presceli Hills.
This does not preclude movement to the Plain by man.
Rather interestingly Monk, sometime ago English heritage, the owners of the site, allowed chemical analysis of 13 Blue Stones, one of which incidentally is green.
The results showed that their were actually 5 different types of stone from 4 different sites, the green stone they added probably came from north Wales.
Now, if you are going to man haul, float, or otherwise transport stones over a distance of some 240 miles, why would you chose so many different sites, especially as only the one site is near suitable water?
Does not this difference suggest the possibilty that the stones were a glacial assemblage?

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:08 pm
by kbs2244
Whenever you mention “stone flying through the air” I am reminded of those guys at Cal Tech that showed just how much work could be done moving heavy things by using kites. ... elisk.html

But enough of this.
I have to go watch some big guys argue over a piece of pigskin.

Blue stones

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:34 pm
by CShark
Greetings all, newbie here (to this site).

I'm slogging my way through 'Hengeworld' by Mike Pitts, as well as 'Stonehenge' by Aubrey Burl. Neither are exactly light reading, but both seem to be considered experts (if there is such a thing). Anyway, Mr Pitts counters the bluestone-glacier threory by stating that there are no other similar stones anywhere near Stonehenge. If they were indeed brought down by glacial movememt, I would have to agree that we should find a few extras laying about here and there........?

Comments ?

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:52 pm
by Digit
If they were indeed brought down by glacial movememt, I would have to agree that we should find a few extras laying about here and there........?

Why? Brought down to where?

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:01 pm
by Minimalist
Hello, Cshark.

So? Which hockey team?

PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:24 pm
by Digit
I post this CShark to show that the debate remains just that, a matter for debate.