Geologists Find Where Some Stonehenge Rocks Came From, Debunking Old Research (cnn.com)

Slashdot reader schwit1 shares a report from CNN: A team of 12 geologists and archaeologists from across the United Kingdom unveiled research this month that traces some of the prehistoric monument's smaller stones to two quarries in western Wales. The team also found evidence of prehistoric tools, stone wedges and digging activity in those quarries, tracing them to around 3000 BC, the era when Stonehenge's first stage was constructed. It's rock-solid evidence that humans were involved in moving these "bluestones" to where they sit today, a full 150 miles away, the researchers say. "It finally puts to rest long-standing arguments over whether the bluestones were moved by human agency or by glacial action," University of Southampton Archeology Professor Joshua Pollard said in an email. Slashdot reader schwit1 adds: "This leaves the question of how..."

Comments

This is new?

[redmid17]

I've been reading this is the established hypothesis for, IDK, prolly 10 years or more now. There's sure as hell a lot o f"documentaries" and documentaries o NGC/BBC/etal that have been saying that as long as I can remember.

And I am not alone: https://www.rca.ac.uk/news-and...

Re:This is new?

[jrumney]

From the first line of the article: Scientists have long known the stones came from the Preseli Hills, but the new research helps disprove claims about the original rock locations made in 1923 by famous British geologist H.H. Thomas. The correct quarries, called Carn Goedog and Craig Rhos-y-felin, are on the north side of the hills -- opposite their long-suspected location, the new findings indicate.

So it seems that yes, we have know for almost 100 years that the rocks came from quarries in western Wales. This has just changed the precise location of those quarries within the Preseli Hills.

Re:Ummm ...

[ShanghaiBill]

150 miles over the hills of Wales and across the Severn into England?

Only if they were stupid.

The Preseli Quarry is only 5 miles from the coast of the Irish Sea (all downhill). From there, they could be moved by barge up the Bristol Channel. Then across 40 miles of flat ground to the Salisbury Plain.

Disclaimer: I use miles instead of kilometers because Britain wasn't metric yet in 3000 BC.

Re:Ummm ...

[Xest]

Britain still isn't metric now in terms of distances. All our roads, vehicles, etc. still measure everything in miles.

Re: Ummm ...

[jd]

They would not have had domesticated horses. Too early. England didn't get those for a further 2,000 years.

In fact, horses weren't domesticated anywhere at the time Stonehenge was started. Proto-Indo-Europeans only domesticated them 5,000 years ago, but Stonehenge construction had been underway for maybe 500 years by then.

Re:Ho hum

[jd]

You're thinking in isolation. And most tourists do, granted. Fools.

I never just look at Stonehenge. Which, by the way, has more than two stones. I look at Avebury, Silbury Hill, West Kennet Barrow, Woodhenge, The Sanctuary, the King's Barrows, the Ridgeway, a good view of the Great Cursus.

And, no, you can't get at Nine Maiden's what you get at Stonehenge, different construction style for a start and very different philosophy.

Sure, there are those who see a pile of stones. I can't educate those who are blind to reason, so I don't care about them. I care about the people who are intrigued by acoustically engineered surfaces, the advanced construction techniques, the landscape in which everything happened.

And it was an incredibly busy landscape rich with symbolism we barely grasp. Stonehenge isn't an isolated thing but a single component of a vast web of functional monuments.

The circle down the road won't compare.