Re: Stonehenge is second hand | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

C

cerrig Dec 12, 2015 11:54:15

Replying to mountainman

The proof of a proto Stonehenge is surely not disputed, there are clearly reused bluestones of a pillar and lintel monument, at Stonehenge itself, so there was an earlier bluestone monument somewhere that predated the sarsen monument. This is not speculation, unlike the possibility of glacial transport, which has the mechanism to do half a job, but not the means to carve and assemble lintels onto pillars.
Human intervention is a certainty, glacial intervention is not.

E

Evergreen Dazed Dec 13, 2015 14:21:40

Replying to mountainman

mountainman wrote:

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.

Brian, I agree, on the basis of the paper I have read there appears to be very little evidence to support the existence of a neolithic quarry at CrRyf.
Perhaps you should expand further here on the evidence you have to support a theory that glacier ice reached Salisbury Plain. Whilst I can understand the value of a study of glacial and fluvioglacial sediments at CrRyf, I would imagine evidence of the same on Salisbury Plain would be vital? If glacier ice on the plain melted causing fluvioglacial streams, it is surely a relatively simple matter for geologists to prove it by finding and studying the resulting sediments?

If i'm barking up the wrong tree, please do put me right. But, as I know you like to keep things 'no nonsense', please observe that in your reply. Is there evidence in the ground that the ice reached Salisbury Plain?

T

tiompan Dec 15, 2015 00:40:24

Replying to mountainman

mountainman wrote:

, 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.

You don't have to look closely at the glacier theory , it has always been obvious that there is nothing that shows convincingly that the rocks were entrained from the area or that the bluestones at the site were entrained, and no evidence that the glacier reached Stonehenge . What we get is a bunch of maybe's .A glacier may have entrained some rocks and may have behaved like an ice stream and maybe “transgressed “onto Salisbury Plain .
Lots of maybe’s and zero evidence .

Stones have been removed from the area in the recent past , this has been confirmed by ethnographic accounts and the presence of the results of that action i.e. gate posts etc. Nothing shows convincingly or otherwise where that action took place ,yet we know that it did. The action of rock removal ,unlike that of glacial action is far more ephemeral , we should not necessarily expect to find the evidence for lifting a convenient rock from the landscape . There are thousands of megalithic monuments in the UK , yet pointing to the sites of the actual origin of the megaliths without the aid of petrography , when it can be used , and only relying on archaeological techniques is incredibly difficult and in many cases impossible . To imagine that geomorphologists can contribute anything to the problem of recognising the sites of stone removal in the area in prehistory (apart from a very few exceptions who were not involved in this case ) is laughable , and smacks of hubris and desperation .