Re: New theories - Snow dammit. | Forum

Stonehenge 180

Image by jimit

New theories — Snow dammit.

more_vert

jimit Mar 19, 2007 10:04:43

Replying to dupisha

Dear Peter,
We all appreciate new theories as to how the magnificent Neolithic monuments were built in this country but IMHO they need to be based on good local and historical knowledge. May I point out a couple of things from your web site which may need amending?

"Apart from ground level change caused by earth quakes and soil build up there is also the fact that rivers often change course over thousands of years. This is especially the case on flood plain like the Salisbury Plains where Stonehenge is located."

This part of the UK is remarkably free of major seismic activity and has been so for millions of years.
Soil build up is negligible in the Stonehenge area due to the geology and farming practices.
Salisbury Plain is raised much higher than the rivers in the area which flow in over steepened and widened valleys caused by glacial outwash during the last Ice Age. The Avon only changes course within this narrow limit.

"This is shown by the location of Roman British ports and docks
well inland of todays sea shore. Archaeology and History show the sea level charts are just plain wrong."

Haven't heard this theory before?

"The Menter(sic) Presili project; to move a stone by sled to Stonehenge was flawed in that they moved it along the river bed in Summer instead of the eeasier option of moving it along the snow and across/along frozen rivers in the winter.

I find it very difficult to contain my anger at these people. In a cold country covered in snow they have never tried to move the stones in Winter."

Excuse me, this is the South of England not the Arctic ;)
It is believed that during the Neolithic period that the climate was in fact warmer than it is now.

"When the ground is soft, say Spring and Summer, you dig the holes for the stones to go in and form the rock and mount it ready for the sled."

The geology of the Stonehenge area is basically pure chalk. The difficulty of digging really doesn't change much from season to season, (I'm a landscape gardner so I speak from some experience!)
in winter, because of its free-draining nature, only the top few inches freeze. However, wet chalk is very slippery and would allow a sort of lubrication for the sled, BUT, how about the poor pullers sliding all over the place?!
Another mystery to solve!

Sorry I've gone on a bit but as I only live about half an hours drive from Stonehenge it's a subject close to my heart ;)

Jim.

I notice you're based in Oz, have you been here?

slumpystones Mar 19, 2007 11:41:36

Replying to jimit

jimit wrote:

I notice you're based in Oz, have you been here?

Doubtful!

"...regarding Stonehenge at Avebury, Wiltshire"

Aerial photography is a wonderful thing [I spend hours each day staring at shapes on photos] but it does cause features to appear as they are not. Yes, it would appear that a river ran across the Avenue, but it doesn't come from anywhere and yet is still powerful enough to create a valley wider than the existing Avon! Chalk downland is also impossible to judge properly because of the amount of chalk on the surface, creating fake highlights, plus any disturbance to the bedrock at any time in the past is almost always recorded by the ploughsoil. So there are remains of sheep-pens, huts, sheds, tracks, gateways, field markings etc etc, all designed in the past 5000 years to bemuse and confuse, all etched into the earth forever.

I think most archaeologists welcome aerial photography as an aid and a guide, but it ceases to become useful once they're on the ground, faced with undulations that are never apparent on a piccie.

Relying on it to reinforce a theory without the fieldwork to back it up is dangerous!

sam Mar 19, 2007 12:28:27

Replying to jimit

jimit wrote:

"This is shown by the location of Roman British ports and docks
well inland of todays sea shore. Archaeology and History show the sea level charts are just plain wrong."

Haven't heard this theory before?

I think this is referring to places like Pevensey. This was a roman saxon-shore fort, and the site of the 1066 landing. It's now several miles in-shore. This is not due to a change in sea-level, but because of a drift in coastal shingle in the middle ages, and drainage of the salt marshes for arable. I know this because I looked it up when we went to the castle - I was confused as to why William the Conqueror had made his army carry the boats inland for 4 miles, when they could have stopped at the perfectly good beach down the road.

sam