|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian Stonehenge Forum | Start a topic | Search |
59 messages | Select a forum: |
mountainman wrote: , 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. You don't have to look closely at the glacier theory , it has always been obvious that there is nothing that shows convincingly that the rocks were entrained from the area or that the bluestones at the site were entrained, and no evidence that the glacier reached Stonehenge . What we get is a bunch of maybe's .A glacier may have entrained some rocks and may have behaved like an ice stream and maybe “transgressed “onto Salisbury Plain . Lots of maybe’s and zero evidence . Stones have been removed from the area in the recent past , this has been confirmed by ethnographic accounts and the presence of the results of that action i.e. gate posts etc. Nothing shows convincingly or otherwise where that action took place ,yet we know that it did. The action of rock removal ,unlike that of glacial action is far more ephemeral , we should not necessarily expect to find the evidence for lifting a convenient rock from the landscape . There are thousands of megalithic monuments in the UK , yet pointing to the sites of the actual origin of the megaliths without the aid of petrography , when it can be used , and only relying on archaeological techniques is incredibly difficult and in many cases impossible . To imagine that geomorphologists can contribute anything to the problem of recognising the sites of stone removal in the area in prehistory (apart from a very few exceptions who were not involved in this case ) is laughable , and smacks of hubris and desperation . Reply | with quote |  15th December 2015ce 00:40 In reply to: Re: Stonehenge is second hand (mountainman) |
Messages in this topic: |
|