The Myth of the Bluestone Quarries
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 09. 2024
- Certain geologists and archaeologists have claimed that the bluestones at Stonehenge were carried by Neolithic tribesmen from West Wales to Salisbury Plain. Further, they claim to have found two "bluestone quarries" in West Wales from which monoliths were extracted. Geomorphologist Dr Brian John examines the evidence on the ground, and concludes that the quarries are simply "figments of somebody's fertile imagination." He shows that the "engineering features" are entirely natural, and that the blocks of stone and other debris that ended up at Stonehenge were entrained and transported by glacier ice during the Ice Age. The quarrying hypothesis is falsified by the radiocarbon dating evidence too. The archaeologists are accused of promoting yet another Stonehenge myth........
Nicely put together and making clear sense, particularly when It comes to the lack of quarrying detritus. The story I was told was that the there was signs of fire excavation and antler found here. This seems not the case…
No antler. There are traces of a fire, but there must have been people camping here and cooking here for thousands of years. It's a perfect picnic site! The "fire" and the "hazel nut" have no demonstrable link with any quarrying activities.
Yes ...didn't M P Pearson report these were well dated found under large stone debris and under any and all other deposits
@@naradaian Web have a scatter of radiocarbon dates, none of which make any sense! All we can say is that there was a very long history of intermittent use of this site by hunting and gathering societies..
I have not seen any record of an antler being found here. The fire was just a camp fire which tells us nothing about supposed quarrying. That association is pure speculation.
Very helpful. Thank you
Excellent work! This makes far more sense and explains the smooth rounded surfaces we see at Stonehenge.
In my view the majority of the bluestones at Stonehenge are rounded and heavily abraded glacial erratics. Only a few of them are pillars, and only a few of them have been shaped -- and used in the bluestone horseshoe. In most "reconstructions" of Stonehenge the bluestones are ALL shown as pillars -- that is misleading and unscientific.
If I had s teachwr at school like Brian John i probably would have stayed at school instead of leaving in primary school. This stuff should be taught at primary school.
Thanks Dawn!
Given that we now know that the alter stone at Stone Henge comes from the North of Scotland. Does the author think that is a glacial erratic as well?
We don't know that, John. That is an opinion, not a fact. No samples have been taken from the Altar Stone or from Orkney, or from Caithness, and until that is done we cannot take this work seriously.
@@Plasingli4 I think you are clutching at straws. There is apart from the other expert evidence this author seeks to rubbish areas deal of evidence of a different scientific kind. First there is A great deal of DNA evidence from bone samples of connections to both Wales and Scotland to hot spots of eolithic activity. Also a wealth of artefact evidence not only from Stone Henge but also Avebury of a direct link to the Orkanies. Further more there is an evidence going back over a thousand years prior to the conception of stone henge of moving even larger monoliths considerable distances. I wonder when erratic theorists will finally give up the ghost.
Yes but No but glaciers from there didnt flow south but easterly
If the bluestones were deposited at Stonehenge by glaciers dragging the eastwards, then there should be a trail of similar stones leading back to the "quarry" or general area of origin. Is that so?
No -- it is seldom that simple. Glaciers don't "drag" stones -- they carry them. Sometimes you have a trail, and sometimes not. The records are full of instances of "unique" erratics all on their own, many km from their place or origin -- and sometimes isolated clusters of erratics. In this case there is a further complication -- most of the route followed by the ice is submerged in the Bristol Channel.
Someone talking sense at last. Thank you❤
Compelling but only touched on alternative theories towards the end. Does the book expound on Stonehenge's bluestone origins?
Hi Olrik -- yes, the book tries to deal with the conflicting theories in a balanced way.
Fascinating,absolutely fascinating...
Very interesting and eye opening.
Yeah, makes a lot more sense than quarrying and human transportation to me.
The only bit that sounded off (just because you didn’t mention it as a discarded idea) is the “why at the bottom of a called when there are rocks all over the landscape?” question, since “access to a watercourse for transport” would be a potential answer (albeit it would need much higher water levels than present day). I don’t think it’s a compelling argument for quarrying/human transportation, just a reason one might take rock near the bottom of a valley, if you were intent on doing so.
It's a compelling argument, Occam's razor right?
Quite so. That's what I have always argued -- the simplest possible explanation of the features at this site is the one that has to be used if one has any respect for the scientific method. The "quarrying hypothesis" is so extraordinary that it requires extraordinary evidence to support it. No such evidence exists.