tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post3081685115398114787..comments2024-03-28T22:13:17.139+00:00Comments on Stonehenge and the Ice Age: The small sarsensBRIAN JOHNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-74788126923514525742010-12-03T14:53:38.847+00:002010-12-03T14:53:38.847+00:00Thanks Tony. Await developments. Wow! I woonder...Thanks Tony. Await developments. Wow! I woonder what this space-age machine is, that can tell whether a bluestone has been in a hole, or not?!!BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-43454752259781936912010-12-03T14:13:13.150+00:002010-12-03T14:13:13.150+00:00Some comments on the Eternal Idol website from Dec...Some comments on the Eternal Idol website from December 1st to 3rd are relevant to the search for EVIDENCE of bluestones (or not) at<br />"Bluestonehenge". In particular, December 3rd's comment that Bluestone 68 does, indeed, possess a fairly unique shape. As I said as "Anon") on Brian's website here on November 28th 2010, Mike Parker Pearson told some of us at a Devizes Lecture to the Wiltshire Archaeology Society in December 2009 that Stonehenge 68 MAY be a match for on of the 9 hole imprints, as revealed by laser scanning. <br />MPP also said a state-of-the-art machine was being used to analyse the chemical constituents of the soil, whilst excavation was taking place.TONYnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-86036704526197860702010-11-29T22:17:02.967+00:002010-11-29T22:17:02.967+00:00Thanks, Anon. Very helpful. I'm intrigued by...Thanks, Anon. Very helpful. I'm intrigued by this:<br /><br />".........it now became patently clear from the IMPRINTS in their bases that they had held stones whose SHAPES closely matched the Stonehenge bluestones, with their VARIOUSLY CURVED,INDENTED AND STRAIGHT EDGES."<br /><br />Does this mean they are matching imprints to individual known bluestones from Stonehenge? I suspect not -- I suspect that since the shapes of the imprints vary they are simply making a deduction which may or may not be reliable. (Their reasoning seems to be that all sarsens are rectangular by definition, and at anything which does not conform is by definition a bluestone!!)<br /><br />Anyway, will await further info with interest......BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-88170773891308995822010-11-29T22:09:56.550+00:002010-11-29T22:09:56.550+00:00Following my comments immediately preceding this p...Following my comments immediately preceding this post, I have found a much fuller report on "Bluestonehenge" in British Archaeology, Jan-Feb 2010, regarding the stone holes.<br /><br />"The holes were wider and shallower than any dug for Neolithic posts from nearby Woodhenge and Durrington Walls. These pits had once held uprights of stone, too small to have been slab shaped sarcens.<br />The standing stones had been placed on individually-tailored cushions of river clay and pads of packed flint nodules.<br />Each pit was different, suggesting that the cooperative activity of erecting a stone circle had been carried out by separate teams assigned to each stone. One stone had sat on a carefully constructed nest of nodules. Others had merely a thin cushion of clay between their bases and the chalk. Another sat on a rock-solid pad of nodules and rammed clay.<br />The bottoms of five of the holes contained IMPRINTS of the stones, pressed through the clay cushions into the soft chalk beneath. Whilst the profiles of the robbed-out holes had already indicated that they had contained neither posts nor sarcens, it now became patently clear from the IMPRINTS in their bases that they had held stones whose SHAPES closely matched the Stonehenge bluestones, with their VARIOUSLY CURVED,INDENTED AND STRAIGHT EDGES."<br /><br />This fuller report contains much more precise information than the earlier-quoted press release, and I think you will agree the statements are more objective and reasoned, clearly based upon careful observation. Press releses, by their nature, tend to be first and foremost eye-catching, and the generality of some of their statements can, indeed, appear meaningless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-76800994376739530462010-11-28T21:28:03.729+00:002010-11-28T21:28:03.729+00:00Hi Anon
That report contains loads of wishful thi...Hi Anon<br /><br />That report contains loads of wishful thinking. Quote: "The imprint of the stones' bases and the shapes of the sockets from which they were withdrawn indicate that these were too small to have been sarsens." What that means is that they were too small to have held BIG sarsens -- they do not appear to have considered the possibility that small sarsens might have been there. MPP and his team obviously WANTED this site to have been occupied by bluestones -- whatever the evidence may be on the ground. <br /><br />Quote: "9 stone holes were identified, part of a circle of probably 25 stones." They are simply guessing that there were 25 stone holes, and guessing that all the stone holes held stones at the same time. There is nothing to show that all of the holes were occupied by stones at the same time -- look at Stonehenge. Stone holes everywhere. Some of the holes held some of the stones for some of the time.<br /><br />Quote: "They compare exactly with the dimensions of the bluestones in the inner oval at Stonehenge." Meaningless statement -- the bluestones are so variable in their dimensions that you simply cannot make a statement like this and hope to get away with it.<br /><br />Quote: "only two (2) bluestone fragments were found, both of spotted dolerite." The geologists now say that there were no spotted dolerite fragments discovered at Bluestonehenge. In fact, the two foreign fragments do not seem to match ANYTHING found at Stonehenge.<br /><br />MPP and his team must do better......BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-86887774039765423672010-11-28T19:02:27.402+00:002010-11-28T19:02:27.402+00:00You say " if there really was at one time a r...You say " if there really was at one time a ring of standing stones at... Bluestonehenge, it now looks increasingly unlikely that these were bluestones, since there are no bluestone chips or fragments on the site. So these must MUST HAVE BEEN small sarcens."<br /><br />The Stonehenge Riverside Project Report on the "Bluestonehenge" site (see www.eternalidol.com and many other sources) states:-<br /><br />"9 stone holes were identified, part of a circle of probably 25 stones.<br />The imprint of the stones' bases and the shapes of the sockets from which they were withdrawn indicate that these were too small to have been sarcens.<br />They compare exactly with the dimensions of the bluestones in the inner oval at Stonehenge. The stones were extracted whole and were not broken up (as was the case in the medieval period). As a result, only two (2) bluestone fragments were found, both of spotted dolerite.<br /><br />Mike Parker Pearson has also stated at a Devizes Museum Lecture to the members of the Wiltshire Archaeological & natural History Society, 10/10/2009, that Stone 68 at Stonehenge may be a match with one of the Bluestonehenge imprints.<br /><br />How do you answer these statements and reports?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-60888453666856198142010-11-27T20:58:39.819+00:002010-11-27T20:58:39.819+00:00Don't follow this at all, Catherine. Why shou...Don't follow this at all, Catherine. Why should "every single thing" have had ritual significance back in the Neolithic, but not now? I don't accept for a moment that everything that our ancient ancestors did had ritual or magical significance. If they were human they probably did a lot that was mundane, a bit that was driven by belief and ritual, and quite a lot that was experimental and even incompetent.<br /><br />If you WANT Stonehenge to be full of magic and significance because that makes you feel better, that's fine by me. It's just that I prefer to look at what's on the ground today, and try to work out what was there (or not there) to start with.BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-68317683943722369832010-11-27T17:15:43.653+00:002010-11-27T17:15:43.653+00:00I must agree that there is nothing 'half finis...I must agree that there is nothing 'half finished' or 'shambolic' about stonehenge. I feel that part of the reason why we find it such a mystery is because we don't look at how 'we' would have thought and behaved back then - it is not enough to transpose our modern minds upon Neolithic people who were pretty much still tribal. Ritual behavior back then would mean that every single thing we would have done would have a significance, not an intellectual or rational reason but a symbolic act that influences luck and destiny (magical consequences).Catherine Perigohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09934094856103017372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-2470504625870164562010-11-27T10:45:48.907+00:002010-11-27T10:45:48.907+00:00Hi Anon -- thanks for the comment. I'm not th...Hi Anon -- thanks for the comment. I'm not the only one who has referred to the "half finished shambles" -- in fact even Atkinson and other august archaeologists have referred to Stonehenge as being "unfinished", although Anthony Johnson's promotion of the idea of the immaculate monument has rather taken over in recent years.<br /><br />Of course the people responsible for the final phase of Stonehenge must have had a cunning plan -- but I don't see any reason at all for assuming that ALL of the proposed lintels will have been assembled before starting to cut all those joints. Pure speculation.<br /><br />And where is the evidence that small stones have been taken away from the site and the big ones left behind? My whole point is that there was always a shortage of stones. The "missing" small stones were never there in the first place -- and I'll carry on believing that until somebody brings me some facts that demonstrate otherwise.BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-39329658897845017312010-11-27T09:24:21.006+00:002010-11-27T09:24:21.006+00:00'half finnished shambles' - a bit harsh fo...'half finnished shambles' - a bit harsh for the oldest monument in history. <br /><br />They must have had a plan if you go to the trouble of cutting mortice and tenon joints on the only 'full sized' stones you can find?<br /><br />Would you not collect all the stones you need before cutting 'impossible' joints?<br /><br />More interesting is that the small stones have been removed for 'other projects' and the largest ones still remain - what technology did they have which we don't to move these stones - remembering that the site was only protected in the last 100 years.<br /><br />Or has the landscape altered so much that we don't see how easy it was to move these stones in the past?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com