It's Official: Stonehenge Stones Were Moved 160 Miles

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Ancient bluestones match outcrop near Wales sheep farm, experts say..

Some of the volcanic bluestones in the inner ring of Stonehenge officially match an outcrop in Wales that's 160 miles (257 kilometers) from the world-famous site, geologists announced this week.

The discovery leaves two big ideas standing about how the massive pieces of the monument arrived at Salisbury Plain: entirely by human hand, or partly by glacier.

As it looks today, 5,000-year-old Stonehenge has an outer ring of 20- to 30-ton sandstone blocks and an inner ring and horseshoe of 3- to 5-ton volcanic bluestone blocks.

The monument's larger outer blocks, called the Sarsen stones, were likely quarried some 20 to 30 miles (32 to 48 kilometers) away in what's now England, where sandstone is a common material.

The origin of the bluestones, however, has weighed heavy on the hearts of archaeologists. Rocks resembling the material under a microscope haven't been found anywhere relatively near Stonehenge—at least until now.

Pinpointing the stones' origins is crucial to understanding how so many heavy hunks of rock made their way to the open plain where Stonehenge now stands.

"There's no way of explaining how these stones were transported without knowing where they came from," said study co-author Robert Ixer of the University of Leicester in the U.K.

For about two decades, Ixer and study co-author Richard Bevins, of the National Museum of Wales, have searched for the origins of the bluestones in outcrops around Wales.

As late as two years ago, the pair thought the blocks couldn't have come from the country—no samples from Welsh outcrops matched the Stonehenge blocks.

But not all of the samples collected over 20 years had yet been prepared for examination under a microscope. To be absolutely certain, the geologists began slicing up their remaining rocks.

The very first one—a chunk of rock collected in Wales 20 years ago—was a perfect match to the Stonehenge bluestones. The geologists spent the next two years checking a piece of Stonehenge bluestone against other outcrops around Wales.

"We sampled extensively and did not find anything that came anywhere close," Ixer said.

The rocky outcrop fingered by the duo's analysis is called Craig Rhos-y-Felin, which is now located on private land near a sheep farm.

The site is a long, bush-covered set of crags the size of four double-decker buses.

The new find leaves two prominant theories for how the Welsh rocks got to Salisbury.

Humans could have quarried the site and dragged the blocks on wooden rafts. Or a giant glacier may have chiseled off the blocks and ferried them about a hundred miles (160 kilometers) toward Stonehenge, with humans dragging them the rest of the way.

If humans did the digging, archaeologists might detect marks left by tools or some other evidence. But if signs of human quarrying are lacking, the glacier idea might gain the upper hand.

Tracing the origins of Stonehenge is an important factor in determining the exact use of the megalithic site. This insight may lead to more discoveries concerning the origins of Stonehenge, its purpose, and the people that created this wonderful site.

reply to post by isyeye


They also reckon that the blue stones that are in stonehenge origonally came from a smaller site called blue henge

The 5,000-year-old ceremonial site is thought to have been a key stop along an ancient route between a land of the living, several miles away, and a domain of the dead—Stonehenge. At least one archaeologist thinks Bluestonehenge may have been a sort of crematorium. Named for the color of its long-gone stones, Bluestonehenge, or Bluehenge, was dismantled thousands of years ago, and many of its standing stones were integrated into Stonehenge during a rebuilding of the larger monument, according to the archaeologists

which they think was a cremation site origonally then these blue stones were moved to stone henge
news.nationalgeographic.com...
Stone henge is thought to be britains biggest buriel site with bluestone henge being the cremation site and where these stones origonally came from.
Nice find from the op tho

reply to post by isyeye


This is really incredible. It just goes to show you that there is a lot about our history we dont know nor can we account for?

Maybe it was a landing pad for alien ships and the opening where the horse shoe is where their door would open.
None the less I am convinced humans from over 5,000 years ago never the had means to build such a structure . Possibly we are still are missing a key link as to the civilizations from before the last ice melt during the last ice age 13,000 years ago .Maybe they were more advanced some in technology than we are today. So many places around the world are so puzzling as how these monoliths and structures were built.

reply to post by freedomSlave


Before anyone goes into claiming aliens were involved into building the henge they might want to take a look at this first:


His name is wally wallington and he shot down the idea that man was never capable of building things such as stonehenge using material readily available to them 5000 years ago which would be ,rock,wood and brains.


Wouldnt you say that it is a bit baffling that this man and his findings in technique are never talked about in the media or most big scientific media outlets.Everywhere were stonehenge is talked about in established media outlets they keep repeating that there has never been a plausible explanation for as to how it was build.

Yet this man here has been showing people this for years how with just 1 man alone something almost as big as stonehenge can be build witouth using any machinery.now imagine 500 men or more on a project like this

The problem of course is that they do not really want it solved.Rewriting or correcting or explaining historical items/mysteries likes these has always seen a lot of unwillingness to accept and to bring forth this information.
In short if you bring proof on the contrary to what the established history books and records say you will be ignored or discredited.

They rather have it kept a mystery and keep talking it up as is.



Disclaimer: No aliens were needed to produce the building and technique in this video

reply to post by Rafe_

Hmm interesting. well I guess you showed me lol . They should try to recreate the scale size , that will shut up the rest of the nah sayers

reply to post by freedomSlave


Your welcome

I agree they should do something like that with more people on a bigger scale.It would be good and about time to get more attention for it.Then they can finally stop claiming how this is all such a mystery and how we have no clue full stop and actually get somewhere.

Originally posted by Rafe_
reply to post by freedomSlave

 

Your welcome

I agree they should do something like that with more people on a bigger scale.It would be good and about time to get more attention for it.Then they can finally stop claiming how this is all such a mystery and how we have no clue full stop and actually get somewhere.

The problem is finding people willing to make this a life choice - to develop the expertise in the area of moving heavy stones with traditional methods. Rather a difficult hobby or attainment. This might occur if someone would offer up a prize to the first people to say, move a 50 ton rock 100 kilometers using x and y only. Such incentives can be useful in developing a new technology or reviving an old one, but I don't think anyone will do so in the short term.

reply to post by Hanslune


I agree but these sort of initiatives/sponsorings usually come from universities or any other scientific/historical source.In order to spark interest and development in the area and have some added adverstisement to boot.Rarely do we see such inittiatives on big projects initialized by one big group of volunteers.

Since the established parties are not interested in the evidence presented i doubt there is much chance of such a initiative.


I would however be happy to shoot a email in the right direction just to see their response to it but as of now i have no idea where i would have to send it.It would be very interesting to see how it would be responded to and i would be very skeptic if certain 'experts' on stonehenge would claim to have never heard of this.

Originally posted by Rafe_
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Since the established parties are not interested in the evidence presented i doubt there is much chance of such a initiative.

Well that is the crux of the problem, eh? It would probably take 10+ or more years to develop a technique and ability equal to the ancients.

reply to post by Hanslune



Uhm....Have you seen what i posted here?

reply to post by Hanslune


I don't really find it all that amazing that the ancients were able to move such heavy stones for long distances.

It's actually very simple.

All you need is a large amount of small round stones.

Lift one side of the stone, place a layer of small round stones underneath, and they act like small ball bearing. Just keep placing a layer of small stones ahead of the heavy stone as it is pulled. It takes work, but it's not very complicated. I have done something similar to this at work before.

It's the end function of the stones that I find interesting.

I am not sure i understand the significance of Stonehenge. Considering the aqueducts, Colosseum etc. that the Romans built. Wouldn't one of those Colosseum be more mysterious than Stonehenge?

the glacier thoery is interesting. here in connecticut you can see the evidence of glaciers all around you, heck central park is practically a laboratory for that

reply to post by isyeye


yes, but it is extremely tedious work and for what purpose? What was the motivation? To me i find the only real fascination here is how to get people to do that kind of work for what must have been some tall tale.

Originally posted by Rafe_
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Uhm....Have you seen what i posted here?

Why yes, good old Wally. However he hasn't moved 50 ton blocks over 100 kilometers of uneven terrain, across water, etc. You will also note that he uses solid concrete bases to base his movements and balancing on, something the ancient wouldn't have had. His studies are an excellent start but not the completion of reclaiming the tradition

reply to post by isyeye


Yes the Russian used copper balls to do the same thing to move the thunder stone - the heaviest weight moved without power - the problem is that you need a very firm foundation to base the rocks or balls on, in sand or soil it's a no go

Originally posted by Hanslune
Why yes, good old Wally. However he hasn't moved 50 ton blocks over 100 kilometers of uneven terrain, across water, etc. You will also note that he uses solid concrete bases to base his movements and balancing on, something the ancient wouldn't have had. His studies are an excellent start but not the completion of reclaiming the tradition

Emphasis mine...

Various forms of concrete were used by the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans. In fact, it seems to have been widely used by many ancient cultures in some form or another. It isn't too far fetched to imagine ancient Britons would have access to similiar materials, seeing as they were actively trading with the continent during this time anyway.

At any rate, I think it is a bit wrong of people to assume that ancient peoples were incapable of doing things like this. They clearly were and just a cursory glance at ancient building techniques shows they were resourceful and capable engineers and builders.

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by isyeye

 

Yes the Russian used copper balls to do the same thing to move the thunder stone - the heaviest weight moved without power - the problem is that you need a very firm foundation to base the rocks or balls on, in sand or soil it's a no go

Hey Hans , so they did it on copper balls, cool, and very interesting. Did they use a nest of ball or linear groups?
In machine tools ;milling machines, largest and the like, very large loads are moved on rollers between two linear faces and the rotary motion of the of the servo that drives it all is converted into linear motion via a ballscrew and recirculating ballnut.
A ballscrew is what it sounds like its a screw that a ball runs in, differing from a regular screw in that the groove is round in profile not a v or square or such.
In the recirculating ballnut there is a helical groove round instead of the v thread in a regular nut. This groove ends with a hole, it then goes to tube that leads back to the beginning of fhe groove.
Now a number or balls tie the two elements together, riding the groove in both parts. The rotary motion of the screw is converted to linear motion of the nut by the movement of the balls through the groove and recirculating tube. The balls are moved through the circuit by the motion of the screw, a ball goes in one end and moves through and returns to the beginning.
Now ,"where is he going with that?" , people may ask, and I'm not saying that they used ballscrews but Han's comment on th use of balls to move that enormous Russian stone got me to thinking.
Last year I read this article, www.history.com... that discusses methods of moving the stones.
So I got to thinking about a linear ball slide.
Now after rereading the article, I have an idea.
The part where they mention the stone balls found at some other site, might have been used to roll a sledge on planks,was very interesting.
So here's my idea, you have a wooden sled that has parallel grooved timbers, with grooves on both top and bottom. The track is is very much the same parallel grooved planks. It's a little longer than the sled and is very much a raft to spread the load across the ground surface . You have several sections so that they recirculate,from the front to the back, you drag the behind track to the front with oxen as you roll the sled on the stone balls. To recirulate the balls to the front by rolling them to the front in the top grooves.
The balls don't have to very big either, and a couple guys per side could handle the chore of moving the balls.
With a.number of oxen the whole moves along pretty well.

Originally posted by stumason


Various forms of concrete were used by the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans. In fact, it seems to have been widely used by many ancient cultures in some form or another. It isn't too far fetched to imagine ancient Britons would have access to similiar materials, seeing as they were actively trading with the continent during this time anyway.

There is no evidence of concrete with the Britons

At any rate, I think it is a bit wrong of people to assume that ancient peoples were incapable of doing things like this. They clearly were and just a cursory glance at ancient building techniques shows they were resourceful and capable engineers and builders.

To clarify; I firmly believe that the ancients moved the stones, no aliens or advanced humans or magic powers; Wally has made a good start in understanding how they did it but has left a number of challenges unvisted