Slashdot Mirror


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..."

73 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. Don't bother by youngone · · Score: 4, Funny

    TL;DR It was aliens

    1. Re:Don't bother by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      It was aliens

      I know it's true because Leonard Nimoy told me about it while wearing a turtleneck.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re: Don't bother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bogus headline... They didn't debunk old research, they MADE PROGRESS and that debunked old THEORIES that were not substantiated by evidence.

  2. Re:Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No, that's Britain.

  3. This leaves the question of how... by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    Have we learned nothing from the Lord of the Rings: Wizards. That's how the stones were moved.

    1. Re:This leaves the question of how... by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Remind me again where in LOTR a wizard moved large stones?

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    2. Re:This leaves the question of how... by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      Remind me again where in LOTR a wizard moved large stones?

      I think he meant Yoda, not wizard, and crashed spaceship, not large stone.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  4. It's obvious how they were moved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's obvious how they were moved.
    They were moved by a truck and a crane after being dynamited out of the quarry.
    We can still do this today, when everything is going downhill in civilization.

  5. Duh.. Amazon Prime by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    or Fed Ex?

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  6. Re:Nonsense by Dewin+Cymraeg · · Score: 1

    Thomas More. Than man who liked to torture people so that their souls went to heaven? Great role model!

  7. Best option for shipping bluestones by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... whether the bluestones were moved by human agency ...

    Amazon Primeval -- No-Rush Shipping

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Best option for shipping bluestones by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Funny

      ... or by glacial action.

      U.K. Royal Mail.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re:Best option for shipping bluestones by mjwx · · Score: 1

      ... or by glacial action.

      U.K. Royal Mail.

      They were meant to be built in Essex, but the stones were delivered by DPD.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    3. Re:Best option for shipping bluestones by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I used to think Royal Mail was crap, but An Post in Ireland seems to average about a week for first class post.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  8. Re:Nonsense by Dewin+Cymraeg · · Score: 1

    And the reason for this insulting abuse of a whole nation would be...?

  9. Ummm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "This leaves the question of how..."

    Haven't we established that 3000 BC people had figured out rolling large rocks on logs? Had quite possibly figured out the pulley? And just maybe had barges or wagons?

    You don't quarry stone unless you already know how to get it where you need it, and humans in 3000 BC had far more 'technology' than we like to remember.

    Why are we always so disbelieving that by the time 3000 BC humans had solved a lot of problems and gained a fair bit of knowledge about the world around them?

    1. Re:Ummm ... by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Haven't we established that 3000 BC people had figured out rolling large rocks on logs?

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

    2. Re:Ummm ... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Ummm ... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      It is also probable they had knowledge of the lever

      Monkeys use levers.

      Birds use levers to pry bark off trees to get at the insects underneath.

    4. Re:Ummm ... by sml156 · · Score: 2, Funny

      The earth was flat 3000 tears ago.

    5. Re:Ummm ... by Xest · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    6. Re: Ummm ... by jd · · Score: 1
      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    7. Re: Ummm ... by jd · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    8. Re:Ummm ... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And neither of them is stupid enough to use it to get stones somewhere else.

      Talk about most intelligent species...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Ummm ... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      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.

      Perhaps a layer of more compacted soil on probable track path from landing site to construction site could still be detected in archaeological layers? That would corroborate your hypothesis.

      A trail of stone tools may be ?

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    10. Re:Ummm ... by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Britain isn't a real big country as it is. If they change miles to kilometers it would be 62% smaller.

    11. Re:Ummm ... by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      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.

      If you are going to assume the use of barges, ship it around to Christchurch, and up River Avon. It's a much longer distance, but the route almost completely eliminates moving the stones over land.

      Disclaimer: I know almost nothing about UK geography, I just looked at a map.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    12. Re:Ummm ... by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      It helps to RTFA.

      "Because the rocks are from the north side of Preseli Hills, the researchers think it's more likely the massive stones were dragged over land from Wales to England, rather than transported on river tributaries located near the south side."

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    13. Re:Ummm ... by MooseTick · · Score: 1

      " If they change miles to kilometers it would be 62% smaller."

      Wouldn't it appear larger?

      The greatest distance between two points in the UK is 968.0 km (601 12 mi) (between Land's End, Cornwall and John o' Groats, Caithness), 838 miles (1,349 km) by road.

  10. This is new? by redmid17 · · Score: 1, Informative

    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...

    1. Re:This is new? by jrumney · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re: This is new? by jd · · Score: 1

      We'd already known that from chemical composition.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  11. Re:Nonsense by hey! · · Score: 1

    I dunno. The equal sign ("=") was invented by the Welsh mathematician, Robert Recorde, from Tenby, Pembrokeshire.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  12. Re:Nonsense by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can think of a few uses for Catherine Zeta-Jones.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  13. Re:Nonsense by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    You weren't as uppity as your Scottish cousins?

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  14. Re:Nonsense by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

    You can stand up for you country better than that. Beat him with a leek and make him eat it.

    --
    "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  15. One guy can easily raise a single stone. by F34nor · · Score: 2
  16. Re:Nonsense by dissy · · Score: 1

    I dunno. The equal sign ("=") was invented by the Welsh mathematician,

    But the equal sign has always been quite uppity, always butting in on both assignment and comparison.. Far too well to do.

  17. Re:Nonsense by msauve · · Score: 1

    Along with Thomas à Kempis, another believer in a sado-maso diety. Who wouldn't believe with them?

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  18. Ho hum by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The new parts aren't quoted or are understated.

    1. We already knew about the quarries, what we didn't have were the actual tools used. We now have them, including wooden items.

    2. We already knew about how they could have moved the stones, they're smaller and lighter than sarsens, we didn't know the route. We now know some were transported overland.

    3. We didn't know if the stones were quarried specifically for Stonehenge or for a circle in Wales that was dismantled and recycled. We now know it was the former.

    The real mystery is why people make a mystery of the known, when the unknown is potentially more interesting.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Ho hum by ledow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, the real mystery is why people travel thousands of miles to look at a couple of stones from a great distance, and at great expense.

      I literally know someone from the US who come to the UK as part of an organised tour of the EU. They got off at Heathrow. Got on a coach. Travelled to Stonehenge. Looked at Stonehenge. Got back on the coach. Went back to Heathrow. Got on another plane to somewhere else.

      And they were *pleased* about that - they kept saying how they'd seen the UK.

      Stonehenge is no doubt an interesting archaeological dig. But it is far from an interesting visitor attraction, especially when you can't get within any reasonable distance of it any more. Given away by the fact that it was there for thousands of years and everyone forgot about it.

      By the way, you can drive to just about any part of the UK and find stone-circles. Not as impressive, I'll grant you, but everything you can see of Stonehenge you can see from the long fast road that passes by it at 60mph (particularly pretty at sunset, I'd like to add).

      And that should be the tourism tagline: "Best viewed at 60mph on the way to somewhere else".

    2. Re:Ho hum by nukenerd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dr Johnson had some words about tourist attractions : "Worth seeing, but not worth going to see."

    3. Re:Ho hum by jd · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:Ho hum by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The real mystery is why people invested a hell of a lot of time and effort to build that thing in the first place.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Ho hum by coofercat · · Score: 1

      I get what you're saying - and good grief, if you come to the UK (into Deathrow, of all places), there are better things to see than the 'henge.

      However, for anyone in the South East heading to Cornwall for a holiday - you'll be going past (at probably less than 60mph), and if you haven't seen it in a while (or ever), then it's worth a stop. Probably not worth a special trip, and not really worth a long queue to get into (other than you might get some of those crazy 'druid' people coming by with herbs and whatnot - that's an experience all of its own).

      IMHO, it's not so much that you're looking at some stones - it's all about what they were for, and how they got there. Despite all the chatter about "it's easy to move the stones" and "anyone could put those up" - the truth is, very few people could do it - and much less could do it in such a way as it would last for thousands of years. As far as I'm concerned, that's pretty cool.

    6. Re:Ho hum by Anubis350 · · Score: 1

      By the way, you can drive to just about any part of the UK and find stone-circles. Not as impressive, I'll grant you.

      Agreed, just as an example on my last trip to the UK we were driving near Keswick and took a detour, paid a visit to the stone circle at Castlerigg. You can go right up to the stones, right into the circle, despite being well visited it's often quiet (for a whole 20 minutes or so we were the only ones there, incredibly peaceful to sit and take it all in), and it's absolutely beautiful on the hill where the stones are. And there's tons (I guess literally actually) of circles of similar appeal. Stonehenge has a road *right* next to it, is packed with tourists, and has restricted access, not worth it compared to alternatives.

      --
      "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
    7. Re:Ho hum by Anubis350 · · Score: 1

      That's fair, but I think the GP was referring to how most tourists take in the circles, and for that stonehenge isnt really worth it. And even just for getting an appreciation of the cultural landscape of the time there are other, less tourist-packed locales. Stonehenge can be impressive and still not worth the aggravation if you have limited time and would prefer more quiet and ability to get closer to the stones.

      --
      "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
  19. stonehenge, where the demons dwell by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1, Funny

    I thought they were hewn into the living rock?

  20. Previous iterations by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

    Previous iterations of the stonehenge were made from straw. But that one was blown away, so then they made the next one out of wood. That one also blew away.

    --
    Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
  21. "The question of how" by DrXym · · Score: 1

    Space aliens obviously. Or more mundanely, by a lot of motivated people hauling a bunch of rocks a really long way on logs or a sled of some kind.

    1. Re:"The question of how" by trash+eighty · · Score: 1

      How to move massive pieces of stone without modern technology.

      Massive whips.

  22. Re:Duh.. Amazon Prime by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    You left out the postal service. If they had used the postal service, the stones would have been stolen or thrown away halfway there.

  23. Can be done without machinery by Roodvlees · · Score: 2

    One guy can move big blocks of stone by hand.
    This construction worker figured it out:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
    Just use the hardness of stone in your favor.
    He places the rock on 2 small stones, balances it on one, then rotates and lets it down on the other. And there's rolling logs, etc.

    --
    Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
    1. Re:Can be done without machinery by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      I looked but I don't see the video where he did that with a couple dozen stones over 150 miles through forests and swamps and over hills and streams. Could you point us to that video?

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    2. Re:Can be done without machinery by Roodvlees · · Score: 1

      Are you serious?
      He's proving that it's possible.
      Of course he didn't do it himself.
      The people involved could have taken hundreds of years to get it done.

      --
      Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
    3. Re:Can be done without machinery by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      He's proving that it's possible.

      I don't see how you extrapolate that from your link. He's proving that you can move large stones very small distances on very flat, hard surfaces. Nothing more. If they had built a 150 mile long flat road and paved it we'd probably have found at least a little bit of it. FFS we've found hundreds of henges, some even made of wood, but zero paved roads from that time period.

      You're arguing something that doesn't have any evidence to back it up, and has some huge logical problems. (Hills and swamps, for starters.) It's more likely that they loaded the stones on ships and shipped them most of the way there. That, at least, would explain the lack of 150 miles of paved road.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    4. Re:Can be done without machinery by Roodvlees · · Score: 1

      He's proving that it's possible to move stones without machine power.
      It doesn't require a massive flat surface, just one big enough for both the supporting stones to maneuver on.
      There's plenty of other techniques that will have been used.
      Like transporting on ships/floats, rolling on logs and who knows what other techniques.
      Most importantly, he showed how the stones can be stood up straight.
      I'm not saying we know how they did it exactly, we'll never know, that's impossible.
      Just that us not knowing how they did it is not an argument for the existence of aliens.

      --
      Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
  24. Re:Nonsense by queBurro · · Score: 2

    The M4?

    --
    sag
  25. Sisyphus by GerryHattrick · · Score: 1

    Maybe an anthropologist can explain why 'moving stones' around was such a demonstration of faith for the ancients. Stonehenge, Carnac, later Pyramids, Moai, possibly the earliest demonstration of group 'engineering', but why? Or maybe these are their only achievements that haven't been erased by time.

    1. Re:Sisyphus by azcoyote · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's basically the same reason that people still compete for the world's tallest building and for breaking Guinness's silly world records--because we can. I always cringe at documentaries that try to come up with silly explanations, including space aliens, because it's amazing that we still don't understand ourselves. Humans have always been symbolic creatures--not mere practical creatures--and so we do things because we feel them to be meaningful, not simply because we think they might be useful.

      --
      Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
    2. Re:Sisyphus by GerryHattrick · · Score: 1

      Entirely agreed - but I still look for an evolutionary or psychological (male-only?) inspiration. Was it like a peacock's tail, some tribes could assertively afford 'display'? Or, some tribes imposed the slavery needed to do it? Or some guru claimed it was necessary for salvation? And did the women then have quieter, kinder, things, but shells, beads, leather, braids just did not survive?

    3. Re:Sisyphus by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Achievements or punishments?

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    4. Re:Sisyphus by GerryHattrick · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Interesting hypothesis. Achievements on behalf of your tribe, or atonement for punishments inflicted by your Gods? Note that Stonehenge embankments are profiled to defend against the INSIDE - what did they fear would emerge from within?

  26. Re:Nonsense by hey! · · Score: 1

    That's more of a second career. Equals sign as assignment didn't feature in the very earliest computer languages. Typically they had syntax along the lines of "set x to 0" or "transfer 0 to X" or some kind of symbol carrying that sense, like this: "0 -> x" (note reverse of now conventional order).

    But one language made an odd decision. In FORTRAN you'd say "n = 0" to mean "assign 0 to integer variable n", and instead used the text ".EQ." to represent the equality predicate. And it turned out FORTRAN was *very* influential.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  27. Re:Welsh by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    Have you heard welsh spoken. Makes klingon seem pronounceable.

    --
    Nullius in verba
  28. Re:Welsh by SirTreveyan · · Score: 1

    Welsh??? Klingon??? What is the difference??? They both sound like someone hocking up loogies...

    --

    SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0

    0 rows returned

  29. Re:Duh.. Amazon Prime by tomhath · · Score: 1

    Porch pirates would have stolen them

  30. Wrong question to ask by Kinthelt · · Score: 1

    The next question isn't "how?", it's "why?" Presumably, there were lots of other places much closer where the stones could have been quarried.

    --

    "Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

  31. Also found nearby... by shortscruffydave · · Score: 1

    A napkin with a crude diagram, annotated with the text 18"

  32. Re: Duh.. Amazon Prime by digitig · · Score: 1

    if it was Fedex, they would have been broken 5 ways.

    Have you seen the state of Stonehenge?

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  33. Re:Nonsense by dissy · · Score: 1

    Fortran eh? That's a good nugget to tuck away.

    My own entry into the computer world was the Apple 2 line.
    Assembly had "LDA X" in its many addressing modes, and basic had "LET X = Y"

    But basic was a relative latecomer even at the end of the 70s so always assumed it wasn't the first language to do that.

  34. Re:Nonsense by J053 · · Score: 1

    Tom Jones. Maybe not useful, but entertaining. (He's actually a pretty good blues singer - with a great voice).

  35. Re:Nonsense by Harvey+Manfrenjenson · · Score: 1

    Or John Cale. Or Dylan Thomas. Or... John Cale singing Dylan Thomas.