|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian Stonehenge Forum | Start a topic | Search |
59 messages | Select a forum: |
Evergreen Dazed wrote: mountainman wrote: I haven't followed this debate in detail, but where did the idea come from that the glacial transport thesis is moribund? Last time I looked, it was in remarkably good health. And by the way, if you look carefully at the famous "Antiquity" article just published, you will find NOTHING in there that shows convincingly that there was any Neolithic or later quarrying of bluestones from Rhosyfelin. There are lots of radiocarbon dates that show a long history of intermittent occupation. So that's interesting. Sadly, the MPP team is as strong as ever on assumptions and speculations, and in telling people what to believe, but when it comes to hard evidence it is all hot air. As for the idea of a proto-Stonehenge, that too is supported by zero evidence. Brian, I agree, on the basis of the paper I have read there appears to be very little evidence to support the existence of a neolithic quarry at CrRyf. Perhaps you should expand further here on the evidence you have to support a theory that glacier ice reached Salisbury Plain. Whilst I can understand the value of a study of glacial and fluvioglacial sediments at CrRyf, I would imagine evidence of the same on Salisbury Plain would be vital? If glacier ice on the plain melted causing fluvioglacial streams, it is surely a relatively simple matter for geologists to prove it by finding and studying the resulting sediments? If i'm barking up the wrong tree, please do put me right. But, as I know you like to keep things 'no nonsense', please observe that in your reply. Is there evidence in the ground that the ice reached Salisbury Plain? The answer is 'no' of course, and thats why Brian suggests that perhaps the bluestones were transported only part way from Wales by glacier. That would mean, at the absolute best, that people still had to haul these stones some 40 miles to SH. Add to that the complete absence of bluestones knocking about this 'drop off' area, and no other monuments consisting of bluestones in the vicinity and what do we have in terms of evidence for this argument? Reply | with quote |  14th December 2015ce 17:36 In reply to: Re: Stonehenge is second hand (Evergreen Dazed) |
Messages in this topic: |
|