Re: The bluestone debate | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

Stonehenge and its Environs 134

Image by Chance

The bluestone debate

nigelswift Nov 16, 2008 16:12:46

Replying to mountainman

You seem a tad keen to find reasons to rule out human transportation. As I mentioned, the Millenium project was a shambles but I was a witness to Gordon's project which convinced me it was a possibility. That, plus the fact I was aware the date range of suitable boats has been pushed back and a boat has been found loaded with stones are three recent reasons why I reckon human transportation is quite a viable speculation.

Stoneshifter Nov 16, 2008 16:34:49

Replying to nigelswift

Can you find anything that links to the boat that was found loaded with stones? I assume it's not ballast cobbles. (That's cobbles, not cobblers!) The bluestones aren't that big, I suppose. When we think of stones being transported to Stonehenge we inevitably envisage the trilithons. One rule of stonemasonry is 'don't move stones uphill' but then, sometimes, you've got to.

mountainman Nov 16, 2008 17:38:01

Replying to nigelswift

nigelswift wrote:

You seem a tad keen to find reasons to rule out human transportation.

Isn't that what we are on about here? My noble purpose in life, just now at any rate (before moving on to something else) is to subject a rather "comfortable' piece of orthodoxy (namely the bluestone transport myth) to some critical analysis!

And I'm still waiting for somebody to come up with some convincing evidence that the bluestones (not just some of them -- all of them, from at least 20 different sources) were shipped across from Wales to Salisbury Plain by neolithic tribesmen rather then by the Irish Sea Glacier......