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

Tuesday, 28 May 2013

The Avenue in art?

With apologies to Lloyd Matthews, I think I forgot to post this back in November, when I momentarily took my eye off the ball, no doubt to the disgust of certain faithful followers of this blog!  It was probably log-cutting time in the woods......

Lloyd says this:  "Stone 059a has two very distinct parallel ribs, as shown in the attached photograph. Could this be a representation of ‘The Avenue’ as shown in the photograph? Although no meanings have yet been found for shapes on stones, surely this does not mean that none exist?

There we are then.  It's a nice idea.......


Constantinos Ragazas said...

Actually Brian, what I see in that fallen stone is the reclining image of a Buddha head!

Can we get serious here? What about a post on my Gobekli Tepe article? You keep blocking all my references to it.


BRIAN JOHN said...

Kostas -- I have blocked a number of your previous posts on this -- it's off topic and i want to stick to what's in the title: Stonehenge and the Ice Age. I have accorded you the courtesy of a mention, as I have with many others, and if you want to discuss your ideas with others at great length, please do it elsewhere.

Constantinos Ragazas said...


The capabilities of prehistoric people is at the very heart of all debates on Stonehenge. Your own bluestone transport theory attests as much. As also do our many previous discussion in your blog. A blog search for Gobekli Tepe will bring up three page fulls of references.

Your application of your "off topic" criterion is narrowly targeted and selective at best. My article on Gobekli Tepe is a response to Geo who first mentioned Gobekli Tepe in your blog as an argument. Here is one such reference from your blog on this:

geocur said ...”Gobekli Tepe is not Stonehenge but there are some similarities and it is nearly 10,000 years old “. 15 March 2013 12:29 comment under your blog post "How smart were our Neolithic ancestors?" Sunday, 10 March 2013


TonyH said...

Hasn't it been suggested somewhere that this stone may have stood upright, and interlocked with its two neighbours? That's just from memory.

geocur said...

Gobekli Tepe was mentioned much earlier here than the reference .
The more recent mention was in response to “Or men 10,000 years ago also possessed the same capabilities of building Stonehenge, under the right circumstances! “ As there were no monuments in the UK 10,000 years ago the only option was to mention those outwith the Isles .

Constantinos Ragazas said...


You are absolutely right. Gobekli Tepe was often mentioned in the past in Brian's blog. And much earlier than the referenced quote in my comment above. You have often used this example in our discussions concerning the capabilities of prehistoric people. I have done some reading and wrote a whole article in response to you! Read and we can perhaps sort this very important issue in our debates.


geocur said...

If there was a representation of the actual course Avenue it might be considered more salient but not a couple of parallel lines . Parallel lines are found all over the landscape and also on engravings (although in this case it is not strictly an engraving , tooling being more appropriate ) should we really consider one is a representation of the other ? Even accepting that only a section of the Avenue was being represented it still doesn't conform as one side of the tooling is shorter than the other and the shorter side also has two less obvious transverse “ridges” which are not found on the Avenue ,or at least not as far as we are aware . The tooling may have meant something to those who did the work but that does not mean that it was representing anything ,you would be astonished at what some people come up with in relation to what they imagine is representational in rock art . The same type of tooling is also found on stones 52 , 54 and 58 .

Neil Wiseman said...

While it's true that the backside of a couple of Trilithon Stones look to be representative of ... something, we must look elsewhere for 'meaning' in the ribs of 59-A.
Quite simply: the Avenue wasn't even a glimmer on the historical horizon when the Trilithons were raised.

Even if, as I suspect, the North & East sets (51/52 - 59/60) were the last to be erected, the Sarsen Circle was still at least 100 years in the future. And regardless of the perfect orientation of the Horseshoe, it was the precise spacing between S-30 & S-1 which codified the Sunrise Alignment - and therefore the Avenue.

Whatever the intended function or symbolism embedded in the various shapes & carvings, I think we can safely assume that none were representative of any externals, other than the entire complex being symbolic of the Cosmos.


Tonia said...

This is cool!