Stonehenge and its Environs 134
Image by tomatoman

nigelswift wrote:
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?
Ah, now we come to another sacred cow!! That particular idea was invented by Richard Atkinson -- HH Thomas did not think the sarsens were manhandled from the Marlborough Downs. He thought they were just collected from the Stonehenge area, where they littered the landscape. Prof Summerfield and Goudie shared the HHT view.

"Ah, now we come to another sacred cow!! That particular idea was invented by Richard Atkinson -- HH Thomas did not think the sarsens were manhandled from the Marlborough Downs. He thought they were just collected from the Stonehenge area, where they littered the landscape."

Yes I know. But all 4 theories are unproven, why should two be picked out as sacred cows and wrong?

As for evidence for human transport, the Millenium Project was a shambles but that didn't prove the bluestones couldn't have been moved by humans, just not in a ramshackle fashion. And the evidence that the sarsens could have been moved by people is very strong - ask Gordon Pipes, Julian Richard and loads of others worldwide.

Maybe the sarsens were strewn about on the Plain but that still involved shifting forty-tonners a mile or two. Why is "shifting them a mile or two" sensible whereas "shifting them 21 miles" is incredible and a sacred cow?

I just think collating evidence for a particular theory shouldn't involve slagging off the alternatives. All four are possible.