Re: The bluestone debate | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

Stonehenge and its Environs 134

Image by RiotGibbon

The bluestone debate

GordonP Nov 17, 2008 22:58:43

Replying to GordonP

GordonP wrote:

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?

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.[/quote]

PS I'm not talking about an animal skinned boat but a real sea going boat perhaps 50 ft long and 12ft in the beam with a rockered bottom.

FourWinds Nov 18, 2008 11:16:14

Replying to GordonP

GordonP wrote:

PS I'm not talking about an animal skinned boat but a real sea going boat perhaps 50 ft long and 12ft in the beam with a rockered bottom.

And they existed? I'd like to see one of those.

The Wexford quarrymen had a long time to do things the easiest way possible. It's probably safe to assume that they were on piece work, so I think they would make it as easy and efficient as possible.

Using this method you wouldn't need a 50ft barge. Slinging it underneath you have no problems with balance. Admittedly, a big wave would probably sink you and they were only coastal. However, the bluestones could have been brought 'coastally' rather by open sea.

Although I accept that the Neolithic people weren't lesser beings, I don't subscribe to them being superior. I know we have lost the methods used, but that doesn't mean that the lost methods were the ultimate and most efficient available.