Littlestone wrote: You’d think by now some of these (elementary?) issues would have been sorted. How difficult is it, after all, to determine which stones were where when - well, perhaps not when but certainly where...
There has always been the problem , from Hawley onwards , whether the Aubrey holes held posts or stones or nothing .MPP believes they held bluestones as did Hawley who later changed his mind ,the problem is that these beliefs can become reified , maybe in 50 years it will just be accepted with question and little proof . The evidence is some of the sides of the A holes show crushing consistent with a stone removal or maybe a timber post , how can you tell without some actual reamins to guide you ? It's not that long ago that it was realised that a group of pits what were believed to be post holes at Woodhenge had actually held sarsens . It's the same at Bluestonehenge , did the pits hold timbers or bluestones or some other type of stone ? there is nothing to go on except the size of the pits . The excavated areas at Stonehenge are a mess and must be a nightmare to interpret simply because of the huge amount of activity throughout prehistory and historically , a Swiss Cheese as somebody described it , others suggest bomb site. Contemporary archaeos blame earlier ones but want still want to dig their holes which will probably be viewed as vandalism in the future . It keeps us entertained though .
 Reply | with quote | Posted by tiompan
1st December 2012ce
17:09 |
|
Head To Head 
Re: New study challenges timeline (Littlestone)