THE BOOK
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
HERE

Saturday, 14 April 2018

Salisbury Plain before Stonehenge


On the matter of where those sarsens came from, I rediscovered a post from five years ago, when David Field was in conversation with Edward Pegler.  It's interesting to read it again...

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/where-did-stonehenge-sarsens-come-from.html

Above is a sketch that David commissioned -- showing Stonehenge before Stonehenge, if you see what I mean.  Sarsens littering the landscape, gradually being collected and used......

What is the age of this supposed Phase One?  5,500 BP or thereabouts?

Heelstone in the distance, and the biggest sarsen vertical as well.  That's the one that was supposedly dug up out of that mysterious adjacent pit and that supposedly later fell down on top of the Altar Stone and broke in two.  Clearly Mike Pitt's latest theory which has picked up all this media attention within the last few days is really all old hat, in that David Field has said it all before........

David seemed to think that the artist had been a bit over-enthusiastic about all those sarsens, but this demonstrates that he has been thinking along these lines for quite a long time.  He also seemed to have been pondering whether -- in this reconstruction -- there should have been bluestones as well.  Now that would be a turn-up for the book.........

6 comments:

TonyH said...

I think Myris knows that there are intentions to attempt to analyse some of the sarsen stones either at, or near Stonehenge in order to determine their provenance, but that this work is either incomplete or not yet started?

Dave Maynard said...

Perhaps Myris could educate us on the potential for characterisation of sarsen. Is it possible? I guess there are huge limitations so that it may be totally valueless.

Dave

Neil Wiseman said...

There's been a lot of debate on this aspect of identification. I know of 2 parties who are attempting to compare the Fyfield sarsens, but, of course, they are not likely to get permission to drill into any stone at Stonehenge, so the best they can hope to do is conclude: "It all looks the same."
(Which it doesn't).

Another group contends that the entire sarsen landscape was once a nearly solid carapace over the chalk, so it'll All be the same chemistry in any case.
(I'm not a subscriber to that idea either).

Myris may indeed shed some light on this ...

Neil

TonyH said...

Myris, where are you, come on down to this Post!

BRIAN JOHN said...

Everybody seems to accept that there was an extensive (but maybe intermittent) duricrust above the chalk at some stage, which was later broken up and "let down" onto the chalk surface. the characteristics of the duricrust seem to have been different in different areas -- Steve Marshall points this out very clearly in his Avebury book. So it does seem amazing that there appears to have been relatively little proper geological analyses of the stones.

In two minds. said...

I fear but that Myris has gone up country to enjoy a little Nubian hospitality.
His return is eagerly awaited but not will not be soon.
CGU.In two minds.