Bluestonehenge forum 2 room
Image by harestonesdown
Bluestonehenge

So anyway​…

close
more_vert
tiompan T
tiompan Oct 7, 2009 13:25:28
Replying to goffik

goffik wrote:
What about Bluestonehenge, huh? Great news, isn't it? What a find!!!

Thought I'd start a new thread to give the new discoveries a bit more of a positive birth on TMA!

I find it amazing - still - that there's so much stuff just waiting to be found... You'd have though somewhere like Stonehenge (and surrounding areas) would have all been excavated to buggery by now, due to it's popularity. You gotta love it when such a hugely impressive site can go undiscovered for so long!

And you just KNOW how excited I get when ancient sites can be linked to water! :D

I wonder how many more features are going to be found in this area? Amazing stuff... Anyway - gonna wade my way through all the news reports and press releases now to swot up on it! Wish me luck... ;)

G x

We don't know what it is yet . 7-9 sockets that may have held bluestones
and if they did may have been part of a more circular feature none of which remains .There is a bit of a surrounding ditchand bank that may be a henge . The ditch may be dated due to the antler finds but the sockets only have charcoal supposedly a later deposit after the stones were removed (if they existed in the first place ) .If it was a stone circle the lack anything funerary or deposits makes the connection with the" stone for the dead , wood for the living" idea look a bit creaky . The RC dates will be crucial but lets hope the resulting interpretation is not too far fetched .

B Branwen
Branwen Oct 7, 2009 14:05:59
Replying to tiompan

tiompan wrote:
We don't know what it is yet . 7-9 sockets that may have held bluestones
and if they did may have been part of a more circular feature none of which remains .There is a bit of a surrounding ditchand bank that may be a henge . The ditch may be dated due to the antler finds but the sockets only have charcoal supposedly a later deposit after the stones were removed (if they existed in the first place ) .If it was a stone circle the lack anything funerary or deposits makes the connection with the" stone for the dead , wood for the living" idea look a bit creaky . The RC dates will be crucial but lets hope the resulting interpretation is not too far fetched .
oooooh...perk

Spaced like a nine maiden circle??

G gjrk
gjrk Oct 7, 2009 14:59:24
Replying to tiompan

Assuming the theory is correct, that it is a complete circle, doesn't 25 stones in a circle of diameter 10m seem claustrophobic? Unless the stones were low-sized, I suppose, or narrow.

It's a very similar size to many multiple ASCs which would have had 11 or 13 stones for a roughly equivalent circumference. Drombeg (17) and Carrigagrenane (19) excepted.

He does say that it's a max figure, but what he was looking at would have determined his estimate.

L Littlestone
Littlestone Oct 8, 2009 17:46:48
Replying to tiompan

We don't know what it is yet . 7-9 sockets that may have held bluestones
and if they did may have been part of a more circular feature none of which remains .There is a bit of a surrounding ditchand bank that may be a henge . The ditch may be dated due to the antler finds but the sockets only have charcoal supposedly a later deposit after the stones were removed (if they existed in the first place ) .If it was a stone circle the lack anything funerary or deposits makes the connection with the" stone for the dead , wood for the living" idea look a bit creaky . The RC dates will be crucial but lets hope the resulting interpretation is not too far fetched .
This has probably been discussed somewhere before but, as it's fairly well accepted that waterways were as equally as important as overland travel (at least in the early days of settlement) it throws up two ideas.

One, if people were travelling upriver for the first time would they be more inclined to build their first major settlements downstream or upstream? I'm thinking of a smallish river like the Kennet. People could probably get to the source of the Kennet from the sea in a week or so and perhaps, for strategic reasons, they would be better off at the source of the river than further downstream. In other words, perhaps the further upstream a settlement is the older it's likely to be (or have I got that totally wrong?).

The other idea is that if a settlement or site (such as the Bluehenge site) is a fair way upstream it might follow that it's not only older than sites further downstream (or located some distance from the primary river site as Stonehenge is from Bluehenge) it might also suggest that because Bluehenge is close to a waterway the argument for the human transportation of the bluestones becomes slightly stronger than the glacial theory (or have I got that totally wrong as well :-)

Like all websites everywhere, we use cookies.