Off the record, I've been chatting with a colleague about the key issues in the "bluestone transport debate" -- and he suggests that the following questions are all crucial. He suggests that none of them have been answered, and I tend to agree with him. Answers from archaeologists please.........
1. If the bluestones at Stonehenge were revered or venerated to the extent that they were worth transporting at great cost across land and sea, why are there so many rock types, shapes and sizes represented in the bluestone assemblage, including many soft and flaky "rubbish" stones?
2. If the bluestones were transported by human beings, why are there no stones in the orthostat group that have come from the north, east and south of Stonehenge? Is it a pure coincidence that they have all come from the west, on a route known to have been followed by glacier ice?
3. If the stones were carried by humans, how did the members of a Neolithic community centred on Salisbury Plain know of the existence of a supposedly “sacred mountain” in West Wales, and where is the evidence showing that they had the geological, geographical and navigational skills to locate it and exploit it?
4. Why is it that other dolmens, standing stone settings and megalithic monuments dating from the British Neolithic are preferentially built with stones collected in the immediate vicinity? Does this not suggest a “utilitarian” or pragmatic culture which had no interest in long-distance stone transport?
