Re: The bluestone debate | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

mountainman Nov 14, 2008 18:29:29

Replying to Littlestone

Just caught up on this debate. Quite intriguing to see how personal and vicious some people get, simply because a sacred cow is held up for close examination. It's high time that this particular sacred cow (namely the Human Transport myth relating to the bluestones) was looked at carefully, because it has changed subtly from being a theory in 1921 to being "the truth" today. OK -- a lot of people WANT to believe it, for a variety of reasons, and feel threatened when somebody comes along and questions it, but can we have a bit more tolerance here?

There are two theories -- the glacial theory (which is the one HH Thomas would have accepted quite happily in 1921 if he had known that there are glacial deposits on the eastern side of the Bristol Channel) and the human transport theory. As many people have pointed out, there is not a single piece of evidence to support the latter, whereas there is quite a lot of evidence to support the former. So on the balance of probablilities, the glacial transport theory has to be the one to go for -- until some "killer fact" comes along which will sort out the debate once and for all.

The arguments are laid out in a new book. Info here:
http://www.bluestone-enigma.co.uk

By the way, nobody is talking here about the Last Glaciation. We are talking of a much older ice cover -- some info from new glacier modelling work here:
http://www.brianjohn.f2s.com/enigma7.html

Stoneshifter Nov 14, 2008 18:48:03

Replying to mountainman

Yes - a great deal hinges on whether Darvill and Wainwright can identify a piece of bluestone, in the Preseli mountains, that has been quarried and is nearby, that can be matched with a very similar one in Stonehenge. The bluestone in the Bristol estuary could have been transported by glacial action just as readily by boat.

tiompan Nov 14, 2008 18:52:58

Replying to mountainman

Hi Brian , your right it has become a sacred a cow and if we are nor careful there are a few others waiting in byre .

nigelswift Nov 15, 2008 08:51:24

Replying to mountainman

"As many people have pointed out, there is not a single piece of evidence to support the latter, whereas there is quite a lot of evidence to support the former. So on the balance of probablilities, the glacial transport theory has to be the one to go for "

I don't think lack of evidence is a reason to say "on the balance of probabilities" it didn't happen. It still may have so should be retained as a reasonable theory and the fact that there's possible evidence for something else having happened doesn't change that. Some processes simply happen but leave no sign. Where is the evidence, footprints, drag marks or empty holes, for the theory that the sarsens were dragged to Stonehenge from the Marlborough Downs?