Bluestones

Evergreen Dazed May 13, 2013 16:53:06

I've just been reading an essay by Aubrey Burl, for the 2nd or 3rd time, concerning the popular myth, as he sees it, of how the Bluestones were transported by human agency from SW Wales to Salisbury plain.

If his general point of view is correct, it appears to me an extraordinary coincidence that the most unusual or visually striking or perhaps 'special' stone monument (I hesitate to say Stone circle) in these islands, also 'just happens' to be the one (and only one as far as i'm aware) that consists, or partly consists, of stones from such an exotic source.
Burl states "Of the more than 1,300 stone circles in Britain, Ireland and Brittany, not one has stones brought from more than six miles away."

We accept Stonehenge as an important monument, a unique monument, a vital part, if not centre piece, of a huge complex acting as a kind of Neolithic 'capital' of sorts, but are also then asked to accept that the stones that were collected from the plain for use in this unqiue monument, just happened to have been the same ones moved 200 miles from SW Wales, (whether during the pliocene or at another time), meaning the builders of Stonehenge were totally unaware of their provenance, but specifically included them in their monument for other reasons, Burl suggesting there was no other stone on the plain.

To counter, Burl writes "To answer 'Stonehenge is unique' is a convenient evasion"

But however much I realise there are many ways you can look at the evidence, it still seems a phenomenal coincidence.

Any thoughts?

Littlestone May 13, 2013 18:37:38

Replying to Evergreen Dazed

Evergreen Dazed wrote:

Any thoughts?

No, you've summed it up perfectly.

hedgedruid May 13, 2013 19:04:59

Replying to Evergreen Dazed

If the bluestones were polished tho' well worth the effort of bringing them so far perhaps ?

BuckyE May 14, 2013 04:00:32

Replying to Evergreen Dazed

It does seem an extraordinary coincidence. But that may be due to a lack of evidence. I don't want to make TOO much of it, but the post at http://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2012/04/petes-puzzle.html at least raises the possibility that there might be more "bluestones" lying around Wiltshite than have been identified. Interesting.

My experience with reading the various theories over 40 years is that they all change. And they change because new evidence is brought to light: mainly through more thorough investigation.

It doesn't seem impossible to me that the Stonehenge builders --over the course of a thousand years-- gathered information on what stones were lying around, and decided to incorporate some or most of the more rare ones. So they scarfed up most of the glacially deposited "bluestones," perhaps missing an odd few of the ones that hadn't been buried in peat or outwash or whatever.

No one has surveyed every square foot of Wiltshire to a depth of twenty feet and PROVED there are NO MORE bluestones ANYWHERE --especially under the ground-- between Stonehenge and the Preseli mountains, right? Or am I, as usual, missing something?

wideford May 14, 2013 09:02:40

Replying to Evergreen Dazed

Evergreen Dazed wrote:

Any thoughts?

Stones for the Ring of Brodgar supposedly came from all over Orkney Mainland, though archaeologists have AFAIK only looked at the surrounding parishes and definitely not the other islands of Orkney. So it is a question of someone actually looking for 'alien' stones, and this is rarely done

The Eternal May 17, 2013 22:24:25

Replying to Evergreen Dazed

Is there any clear evidence of glacial flow from the Preseli area to the Stonehenge area, or at least to the Avebury area, where the sarsens came from?

In other words, were the bluestones selected, like the sarsens, because the lay within a reasonable area to be drawn from? Why were the bluestones all deposited in one small area, with no other examples to be found today?

If not, then it's hard to believe any other theory than the Preseli one. There are prehistoric bluestone quarries there, and semi-dressed stones have been found there of the same shape and size as those found at Stonehenge. If a bluestone circle existed in the Preseli area, then it could have been robbed and taken to Stonehenge, but it would still mean the architects took it all that way.

Cheers,
TE.

hedgedruid May 20, 2013 09:30:43

Replying to Evergreen Dazed

When we look at the work and skill shown by our ancestors to work the great sarsen stones , shaped, tenons cut from the rock and erected , and the lintels which are curved to the circle shape as well as tenoned again ; transporting the bluestones from the presellis isn't so far fetched in fact I would say highly probable .
And if all else fails - it was aliens lol .

hedgedruid May 20, 2013 13:03:26

Replying to Evergreen Dazed

Another thought occurred . Before i was interested in neolithic monuments i thought that the stones which were moved from s.wales were the huge sarsens . and i find now talking to folks that a lot of people still think it was the sarsens which were moved. Has this caused a sort of mental block in peoples thinking ? to move a 30 ton stone even ship it by sea would be incredible but untrue anyway in this case .
I think its peoples preconceptions which "stop " the bluestones being moved.