|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian Stonehenge Forum | Start a topic | Search |
69 messages | Select a forum: |
mountainman wrote: In my view the key factor in the decision to build Stonehenge where it is was simply the availability of stones -- of many types and sizes. That in itself may have given the area "significance" or "power" and triggered off the building project. The stones will not ALL have been AT Stonehenge -- they may have been scattered over quite a wide area. To assemble them and use them was undoubtedly an impressive feat. Why destroy a good story by bringing in all this fanciful stuff about mighty land and sea journeys by intrepid stone collectors? It was fanciful in 1922, and it is infinitely more fanciful today, now that we know much more about geology, glaciology and geomorphology. In my view the key factor , as is the case in many monuments megalithic or otherwise , was that the site itself or more importantly what had taken place at that site earlier was the decisive factor . Long before any stones where erected there was a bank and ditch and possibly a wooden structure . It was only half a millenia later the stones were put to use . As the monument has only been partially excavated we may yet discover an even earlier phase . This phasing is not uncommon at major sites , many Long Barrows despite being built in the early Neolithic have evidence of even earlier use .What appears to be a stone circle often proves to have had a history of use that encompasses many other types of monument and may have started life as a knapping site in the Mesolithic . There are no shortages of areas where stones are readily available but no monuments to be found . Reply | with quote |  17th May 2011ce 07:24 In reply to: Re: Analysis of zircon crystals (mountainman) |
Messages in this topic: |
|