Stonehenge forum 180 room
Image by Zeb
Stonehenge

Stonehenge is second hand

close
more_vert
tjj T
tjj Dec 10, 2015 08:41:29
Replying to tiompan

tiompan wrote:
From that article in answer to the question “Have archaeologists found Stonehenge quarries? “ he answers “they certainly thinks so “
Not a resounding yes from a source we might expect to be supportive of the team

The archaeos seem little better than the glacial proponents when it comes to hubris and narrative creation , although they do have much more going for them and ultimately are more likely to be seen to be correct or at least the glacial proponents will have never provide the evidence to support their moribund theory whilst the petrographers will slowly make the human transport one more likely to all but the most obsessive .

There are a quite a few problems though June .
One is the 500 years , where does that fit in ?
There are various dates from the site from Mesolithic to 780 AD (no doubt beyond too but they are not relevant ) and none can provide dates from the removal of the rocks , if they were indeed removed . There is no certain date for their arrival or erection at Stonehenge either , so the 500 years is completely manufactured to fit in with one particular narrative .

Thanks for your always measured comments Tiompan, especially the one about the 500 years. Have to admit when archaeologists talk about such precise timescales in the context of millennia I start to feel a little bemused. Stonehenge is, and probably always will be, an enigma.

M mountainman
mountainman Dec 12, 2015 10:59:00
Replying to tjj

I haven't followed this debate in detail, but where did the idea come from that the glacial transport thesis is moribund? Last time I looked, it was in remarkably good health. And by the way, if you look carefully at the famous "Antiquity" article just published, you will find NOTHING in there that shows convincingly that there was any Neolithic or later quarrying of bluestones from Rhosyfelin. There are lots of radiocarbon dates that show a long history of intermittent occupation. So that's interesting. Sadly, the MPP team is as strong as ever on assumptions and speculations, and in telling people what to believe, but when it comes to hard evidence it is all hot air. As for the idea of a proto-Stonehenge, that too is supported by zero evidence.