Stonehenge and its Environs 134
Image by RiotGibbon

tonyh wrote:
Talking of vegetation. It's not just the ground that has to been considered. moving a load through brushwood or woodland would be extremely difficult..

Tony

Good point . Not often considered .

tiompan wrote:
tonyh wrote:
Talking of vegetation. It's not just the ground that has to been considered. moving a load through brushwood or woodland would be extremely difficult..

Tony

Good point . Not often considered .
I just find it difficult to believe that all the land between Stonehenge and the west of Wales was pasture. The way I see it is - You would have dense mature woodland, light woodland, brushwood, pasture and cultivated land..

Only pasture is relatively easy...

But lets not forget natural features like gully's and ditches..

I haven't looked, so I have no idea how many brooks, streams and rivers need to be crossed. How much swamp or marshland need to be circumnavigated..

Tony

tiompan wrote:
tonyh wrote:
Talking of vegetation. It's not just the ground that has to been considered. moving a load through brushwood or woodland would be extremely difficult..

Tony

Good point . Not often considered .
Perfectly valid point. In west Wales we are referring now to at least 20 different sources for the bluestones (Darvill's recent talk to Soc of Ant) dotted about all over S and W Wales. We are not talking about open chalk downlands here. We are talking about JUNGLE!! Bogs, slippery river banks, incredibly dense woodlands. Instead of carrying on a fascinating dialogue about technology, might it not save everybody a lot of intellectual effort if we just get this question out of the way first: how likely is it that Neolithic tribesmen would have even attempted to collect stones from at least 20 different locations in a densely-wooded terrain with deep river valleys, steep slopes, and boggy ground here, there and everywhere?