Bluestone transport by boat to Stonehenge. The evidence.

Maybe.

Carl Andre's Bricks, Raymond Baxter & Stonehenge - The Connection

TATE ETC. - Raymond Baxter on Carl Andre:


Amazing!

The Cuckoo Stone

There is evidence for a few natural occurring sarsen stones on Salisbury Plain - the nearest being The Cuckoo Stone

2007 Excavation IV - Stonehenge - Research - Archaeology - The University of Sheffield: "The Cuckoo Stone

About 500m west of Woodhenge is the Cuckoo Stone, a squat sarsen boulder which lies on its side. A large trench was excavated around it to reveal the hole, immediately to its west, in which the stone originally sat. The shape of the hole closely matches that of the stone when recumbent and, as with the nearby Bulford standing stone excavated in 2005, it seems most likely that the Cuckoo Stone lay in this position as a natural feature before it was set on end as a standing stone.

Before the Cuckoo Stone was erected, it was removed from the solution hollow which had formed beneath it. A posthole was then dug into the base of the solution hollow. Finally, the stone was set vertically within the hole, replacing the wooden post. Unfortunately there was no dating evidence for this construction sequence but prehistoric features in its close vicinity suggest that this happened before 2000 BC....
The Cuckoo Stone compares well with the Tor Stone at Bulford, about a mile east of the River Avon. In 2005 excavations demonstrated that this stone was similarly associated with an Early Bronze Age cremation burial – in this case a double Food Vessel burial. It too had been raised from its natural recumbent position which was visible as a solution hollow."

It is very possible that the Heel Stone and Station Stones are also local but their original lying places has not been found so the jury is still out.
There is no evidence of any large number of Sarsen Stones anywhere on Salisbury Plain so I remain convinced the vast majority of the Sarsens came from the Marlborough Downs.

(There are other Cuckoo stones across Britain, odd erratics that seem out of place..)

Sarsen Stone Leaflet.pdf

Sarsen Stone Leaflet.pdf:



The first draft available to download - any mistakes please tell me!

The text:

Over five million years ago buried sand and gravel bars lying on top of the chalk of Southern England were cemented by silica. The composition and hardness of this layer varied. The subsequent millions of years of natural erosion wore most of this layer away leaving a few buried boulders and some extremely hard stones on the surface near where they formed.
The builders of Stonehenge chose the hardest, finest and largest of these. The crispness of the edges of the stones stands testament to their hardness when they were shaped.
It maybe that the Station Stones, for instance, are local, but there is no other credible source for most of the stones than from around Fyfield Down to the west of Marlborough, 18 miles to the north of the monument, where many stones still remain on the surface to this day.
The accepted view is that the stones were taken on a westerly route around the Pewsey Vale. Recent field work and surveys of the landscape makes this seem unlikely as the route would have involved crossing two large marshes, a hill and then going up a steep incline.
The climate at the time of the building of Stonehenge was similar to now so the marshes and swampy streams of the Pewsey Vale were an obstacle to crossing it for all of the year. But there was one firm, dry route possible.
This is the route mapped overleaf which is the shortest and most direct. Ancient roads follow it with no excessive inclines and no marshes to cross. The River Avon would be crossed at its narrowest point which is at the contemporaneous and mysterious Marden Henge, which maybe one day will yield some more clues.

We will never know the full story of the stones and assuming the easiest route is the route they took may be a mistake. After all if the builders had wanted the easy life they wouldn’t have built Stonehenge.

Neath Barrow Mystery Solved - It's Robin Hood's Ball (Probably)

C Greenwood's map of Wiltshire dated 1820 shows"Neath Barrow" close to Robin Hood's Ball on Salisbury Plain.
This barrow doesn't show up on any other map I have to hand.

Comparing the map to a modern OS map leads me to believe it is actually the Causewayed Enclosure now known as Robin Hood's Ball and maybe an associated tumulus that it is referring to. The name was originally applied to the wood and then transfered to the enclosure.

Click on Maps to get larger versions.

Further investigation found that Neath Barrow was one of the original triangulation points for the Ordnance Survey:


The details are available in this book;

An account of the operations carried out for accomplishing a trigonometrical ... By William Mudge, Isaac Dalby, Thomas Colby, Great Britain. Ordnance Survey

Annoyingly the relevant map Plate VII isn't fully scanned - though presumably others will have a copy.

I'm not sure I understand the angles and distances figures in the attached scan

But I have mapped one place that is the stated distance (32882 feet) from the Beacon Hill Trig Point. - It is also about the right distance from Red Horn Hill, because that distance is given from Red Horn Clump which I don't know the exact position of.

There seems to be a second distance from Beacon Hill given (32869) feet, which is strange. And I am only guessing the Beacon Hill measurement is from where the Trig point was put up.

Frustratingly close to accurately pin pointing the Barrow,


View Neath Barrow? in a larger map


Robin Hood's Ball was the name given to a small circular copse of wood just to the north west of the earthworks. It is probable that over time the name came to be associated with the enclosure instead.

It all points to Neath Barrow being the original name for the enclosure. And before Colt Hoare et al dug it over the barrows on the northwest side it may well have been more impressive.

Dem bluestones | The Times

Dem bluestones | The Times: "Contrary to a recent archaeological report, the arguments for the Stonehenge glacial transport theory still stand
Sir, It is misleading to suggest that new evidence on bluestone provenance freezes out the Stonehenge glacial transport theory (Norman Hammond, “Bluestones glacier theory is now frozen out”, Dec 17). Many bluestone types at Stonehenge do not match the Pont Saeson outcrop. The arguments for glacial transport still stand: varied bluestones, many sources, and glaciers capable of removing large erratics from Pont Saeson and other areas.
Dr Olwen Williams-Thorpe
Senior Visiting Fellow, Open University, Guisborough, N Yorks"

Bluestone Source Map (one of the sources at least)

View Larger Map

137 miles as Joe the Crow would fly to Stonehenge. Not a hard fact to check but beyond most of the journalists in their pitiable reports this week.