Stonehenge and its Environs 134
Image by RiotGibbon

GordonP wrote:
Hi Tom

I take your point but I still don't think the Bluestones would have been carried underneath the boat, although as a place for ballast it surely could not have been bettered. Imagine the wave that could have capsized a craft so laden?

No, if the bluestones were moved by man, then they would have put them inside the boat, albeit as low as possible inside the boat.

If quarrymen in Wexford definitely used this technique to move 3 tonne millstones how can you dismiss it as viable? This method means that you don't have to lift it into the boat. Ever tried lifting a 3 ton stone into an animal skin boat?

On the other hand, millstones aren't sacred. If you'd gone to a great deal of effort and expense to obtain holy stones from afar, you naturally would treat them well. You wouldn't risk losing them to the bottom of the sea by slippage. I don't think you would, anyway.

If quarrymen in Wexford definitely used this technique to move 3 tonne millstones how can you dismiss it as viable? This method means that you don't have to lift it into the boat. Ever tried lifting a 3 ton stone into an animal skin boat?[/quote]

Simply because it makes no sense, just because quarrymen in Wexford didn't know any better does not mean that Neolithic knew as little.

If I can load a boat as described (and believe me I can) then Neolithic man could, they were a lot smarter than this little "rough-arsed builder".

Why sling a stone beneath a boat when you can put it safely inside just as easily. With the stone inside the boat paddling is so much easier.