The Modern Antiquarian. Stone Circles, Ancient Sites, Neolithic Monuments, Ancient Monuments, Prehistoric Sites, Megalithic MysteriesThe Modern Antiquarian
Home Latest Posts Forums Maps Help
Browse Sites News Blog Contributors The Books
Head To Head   The Modern Antiquarian   Stonehenge and its Environs Forum Start a topic | Search
Stonehenge and its Environs
Re: The bluestone debate
390 messages
Select a forum:
Stoneshifter wrote:
Can you find anything that links to the boat that was found loaded with stones? I assume it's not ballast cobbles. (That's cobbles, not cobblers!) The bluestones aren't that big, I suppose. When we think of stones being transported to Stonehenge we inevitably envisage the trilithons. One rule of stonemasonry is 'don't move stones uphill' but then, sometimes, you've got to.


Bronze Age stone barge used on the Trent http://www.britarch.ac.uk/BA/ba69/news.shtml

The Dover and Ferriby boats would have carried 3 and 4.5 tons cargoes respectively, which covers a lot of the bluestones, 3 to 6 tons.

"One rule of stonemasonry is 'don't move stones uphill' "
A good rule, but Gordon managed to pull a 17 tonner uphill. Worrying whether stones could be pulled is a bit silly IMO. If you pull hard enough, she'll come, end of calculation. I think he used about fifty people to do that, half of whom were desk jockeys. Imagine if he'd had 500 horny handed sons of toil...

The barge idea appeals. You could pull bluestones up the river to within a mile or so of Stonehenge, dead easily.


Reply | with quote
nigelswift
Posted by nigelswift
16th November 2008ce
17:29

In reply to:

Re: The bluestone debate (Stoneshifter)

2 replies:

Re: The bluestone debate (Stoneshifter)
Re: The bluestone debate (FourWinds)

Messages in this topic:

Terms & Conditions  |  Home  |  Julian Cope presents Head Heritage Top of page