Meet the Henge Builders

[Minimalist]

The only problem with that Dig is that the glacier seems to have deposited exactly the right number of stones...and 400,000 years too early! There are no other blue stones laying around which were, for example, too small to use or too large too handle. Seems a bit bizarre.

You can't get a contractor you pay to perform that well.

[Digit]

Bluestone fragments on Salisbury Plain without clear archaeological context, and pieces incorporated, sometimes apparently accidentally, in monuments of Neolithic age onwards (some predating the bluestone erections at Stonehenge) may be remnants of erratics.

Or perhaps they planned the Blue Stone circle to have as many stones as were available to them Min. At the moment I can think of no particular reason why the Blue Stone circle should have more, or less stones, than it actually has.

[Ishtar]

How many does it have, Dig?

[Minimalist]

Bluestone fragments on Salisbury Plain without clear archaeological context, and pieces incorporated, sometimes apparently accidentally, in monuments of Neolithic age onwards (some predating the bluestone erections at Stonehenge) may be remnants of erratics.

Or perhaps they planned the Blue Stone circle to have as many stones as were available to them Min. At the moment I can think of no particular reason why the Blue Stone circle should have more, or less stones, than it actually has.

LOL. Maybe. I just don't think you can get that kind of specificity from a glacier.

(I lived on Long Island for 55 years and it is a terminal moraine. There were rocks EVERYWHERE.)

[Digit]

43 Ish.
I think you missed my point Min. There are 43 stones in the circle, I'm not suggesting they prayed to the glacier God to deliver 43 stones, I'm saying that they used the number because that, or a larger number, was what was available to them.
43 stones represents 42 gaps, which, if either was important to them?
That's 43 out of a total of 80 standing stones, so there appears to be little realationship there, and even less to the Aubrey holes which, may, or may not, have originally held stones.
To me the logical reason for incorporating the Blue Stones into the structure could well have been simply the fact that they were rare.
Salisbury Plain is situated on the largest area of chalk in Britain, and the colour of the Blue Stones may well have made them an object of curiosity long before Stonehenge, as suggested in the article I posted.
If they had had access locally to 90 Blue Stones I suggest that Stonehenge would probably not have Sarcen/Sarsen in it at all.

[Minimalist]

Terminal moraine:




Salisbury Plain




I don't know. They sure don't look terribly similar to me. And if the glacier pushed further it would have taken the stones with it.

[Beagle]

I don't know either. If there is a terminal moraine in the area, then the bluestones may well have been deposited. I think there was an article that said the actual quarry was found. I'll check later today and see if I can find it.

But glacial deposits wouldn't surprise me.

[Digit]

You are using the same arguments as Marduk Min, (sorry!)
I am not, nor did the article I posted, suggest that the BSs were dropped at the builder's feet, simply that they were not carted all the way from Wales by human hands.
There are erratics all over the UK with no Moraine in sight, erratics can be simply left behind from within the glacier when the ice melts around them with the moraine miles down slope.

[Minimalist]

As I recall it was one of the few things that Marduk and I ever agreed on.

Oh. Except Arch. That was another!

[Digit]

The actual locality has been determined Beag, three others in the area are chemically identical, which is hardly suprising.
As for a quarry, the usual site suggested as the origin consists of nicely shaped pillars that have been fractured by the weather, wedges would probably have been all that was needed.
Take a look at a relief map of the area and you will soon realise that 'quarrying' the stone would have been the least of their difficulties,
removing it from the site would have been infinitely more difficult.

[Ishtar]

There are 43 stones in the circle, I'm not suggesting they prayed to the glacier God to deliver 43 stones, I'm saying that they used the number because that, or a larger number, was what was available to them.
43 stones represents 42 gaps, which, if either was important to them?

Ah, we've cracked it! It's the gaps.

42, you say? That number is the Meaning of Life in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy!

[Digit]

See if this helps Min?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/southwest/si ... cier.shtml

[Digit]

42, you say? That number is the Meaning of Life in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy!

That's another problem we can tick off then Ish.

[Beagle]

The actual locality has been determined Beag, three others in the area are chemically identical, which is hardly suprising.
As for a quarry, the usual site suggested as the origin consists of nicely shaped pillars that have been fractured by the weather, wedges would probably have been all that was needed.
Take a look at a relief map of the area and you will soon realise that 'quarrying' the stone would have been the least of their difficulties,
removing it from the site would have been infinitely more difficult.

Good enough. You know the area personally. I accept that they may have been transported by glacier.

Nothing like having a resource "on the ground".

[Forum Monk]

You are using the same arguments as Marduk Min, (sorry!)
I am not, nor did the article I posted, suggest that the BSs were dropped at the builder's feet, simply that they were not carted all the way from Wales by human hands.
There are erratics all over the UK with no Moraine in sight, erratics can be simply left behind from within the glacier when the ice melts around them with the moraine miles down slope.

Hey Digit
Heres a little trip down memory lane - I thought this glacier theory was debunk a while back.
http://archaeologica.boardbot.com/viewt ... ones#24723

Only just found this, it's a bit late, but BBC news page for june 06 states that geologists have found evidence that the blue stones weren't taken from Wales by human hands but were in fact transported by glaciers. old argument I know, but they claim to have the evidence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wale ... 123764.stm
Here is an old article refuting the one you were talking about. I seem to remember that now. Since that time I believe that this quarry article has been proven by a thermoluminescence technique.

thats not a new theory and it was debunked the day after some idiot thought it up
the sarsens came from wiltshire
and the bluestones came from wales

bit skilled for a glacier
and no
there arent any bluestones lying around anywhere in england except the site in wales
they even know where the quarry was
it was in preselli

Marduk, you are more upto date than me. Bluestone has been used in this area in the past, and in fact still is. Is there a scientific method of proving that a particular rock came from a given quarry. To be honest I would not have thought that quarrying was necessary, the damn stuff lies around on the surface all over the place, why dig it out when it's laying on the surface? Somebody must have liked hard work.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/4123764.stm
you're building a sacred site do you
a) search the entire country side for bluestones which may or may not be suitable and then having found them drag them by hand across miles of barren countryside
b) get them all from a quarry where you can ensure that they are good enough which is right next to the coast so you save loading them onto rafts

no one lkiked hard work
thats the point

you need to start checking dates on news reports Roy
you glacier theory 13 June 2006
my quarry theory 24 June, 2005
heres the latest
http://www.nyartsmagazine.com/index.php ... Itemid=164
dated November / December 2006
...
the idea that they dragged the stones from the quarry to the shore is also proven
they found a bluestone at the bottom of the bristol channel a few years ago
so unless you think the bluestones swam to salisbury.....

If you read my earlier posts I have already said I can't see the last glasciation having moved anything eastward. I am just a little suprised that people would have chosen Carn Menyn as the source, even today with hugely powerful machines available nobody ignores the more easily assessable sourses.
Nobody looks for hard work.

And on and on...

But it seemed only a year ago you had conceded the bluestones originated in quarries. So if the tests show the stones came from about three original sites, how did the builders manage to pick only those stones out of all the glacial debris which was just lying around????