THE BOOK
Some of the ideas discussed in this blog are published in my book called "The Bluestone Enigma" -- available by post and through good bookshops everywhere. Bad bookshops might not have it....
To order, click
HERE

Monday, 3 October 2011

The diddy little pair of standing stones at Carn Meini

In the recent BBC "Digging for Britain" programme which featured Profs TD and GW digging in the Neolithic chambered tomb near Carn meini, great emphasis was placed on the "pair of standing stones" from the "ceremonial monument" unearthed beneath the later burial mound.  According to the good professors, the use of paired stones like this provided a clear link with Stonehenge, and also demonstrated that a very important person was buried here -- maybe the very fellow responsible for designing if not building Stonehenge.  So how big are these paired standing stones?  See for yourself:

You can see them quite clearly in the right foreground of the top pic and at the side of the chap with the drawing board in the lower pic.   How long are they?  Maybe 50cm, if we are generous?   Let us therefore refer to them as "miniature" standing stones........  and this leads us into interesting territory.  Maybe the Chief Architect and his wealthy client started their Stonehenge project by building a miniature (one-tenth scale) monument to start with, using nice little stones,  before moving on to the real thing?  Or maybe this ceremonial monument really was built by the fairies?  (In Wales they are ofter referred to as "the little people" -- and little people would clearly have had a preference for little stones.)  But on the other hand Geoffrey of Monmouth says that giants were involved in the moving of the Stonehenge stones.....

All very confusing.  This line of thought is getting too taxing.....

11 comments:

Geo Cur said...

I made the point a wee while ago elsewhere http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/forum/?thread=63565&message=808299 that if there were any standing stones to be seen they would have been noted by Toby Driver .No mention that I remember of whether they were bluestones or not .

BRIAN JOHN said...

Thanks Geo -- interesting post on that other site. But in fairness to the 2 professors, Toby Driver would not have seen these sweet little standing stones because they were hidden beneath the debris of the Neolithic chambered tomb.....

Constantinos Ragazas said...

Brian,

Thanks for the post. The photos of these 'miniature standing stones' is 'clear and convincing' evidence of the extremes that 'true believers' would go to 'witness' their faith and fable. When people need to believe, the 'magic' is 'real'! How can they get away with it?

I understand why they insulate themselves from your truth.

Kostas

Tony H said...

Tim Darvill's Ph.D was based on a study of the Neolithic in Wales and the West of England, and the Neolithic is one of his major career specialisms. It is interesting to know that in his Graduate Year (1979) from University of Southampton was none other than Mike Parker Pearson.

Geo Cur said...

They wouldn't have been so hidden if they were actually standing stones,I dont' think the debris was much more than a metre high and apart from the capstone was aminly quite small rocks .

BRIAN JOHN said...

If you look at where the old ground surface was, the "pair of standing stones" must have projected about 20cm above the turf. So no wonder Toby didn't spot them when he flew over in his aeroplane!

Geo Cur said...

Toby actually recorded the site ,as mentioned in .
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/forum/?thread=63565&message=808299

BRIAN JOHN said...

In that post, some doubt is cast on the idea that these standing stones are made of bluestone. Everything here (apart from some rhyolites)is dolerite, some stones more spotted than others.

P Mandelson said...

Do we know for absolute certain that no skullduggery was involved in this ' uncanny discovery of a pair of Stonehenge-like Bluestones'?? Even if it was pouring with rain and many got pneumonia.

BRIAN JOHN said...

Far be it from me to cast suspicions on the two professors. They may have vivid imaginations, but I doubt that they would sink to the fabrication of evidence. The stones look OK to me -- although their miniature size is a source of wonderment. Look at the mark which shows where ground level was before the excavation started. That looks quite authentic.

Anonymous said...

Field archaeologists have looked at this site in detail on several occasions in the past decade and it is a scheduled ancient monument, although doubt exists as to whether it is Neolithic or Bronze Age. If they manage to get a radiocarbon date they may at least help progress that particular debate.