| Author |
Stone Type |
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 1704
from Bridgend,S.Wales
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 28-10-2011 at 23:46
Recently there has been a lot of discussion down-below (Mysteries Forum) regarding the types of stone used in megalithic monuments. Cerrig pointed out that Stonehenge used two specific types and paralled this with the pyramids at Ghiza. Other examples include -
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=2107
Saith Maen where six of seven stones are local but number3 (or 5 depending on your way of counting) is of old red sandstone, a glacial erratic.
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=30303
Carn y Gigfran where local rock was ignored and the cairn was built from a few rare outcrops.
There are many monuments South Wales where the builders took great care in utilising "rare resources" but the parallels in England don't seem have been recognised by the archaeos.
On both counts, any suggestions why?
 Profile
 Reply
|
cerrig
Joined:
25-09-2009
Messages: 907
from Brecon Beacons
OFF-Line
| Posted 29-10-2011 at 03:31
Sandstone/Limestone formed mainly through the action of water and decay. Bluestone/Granite formed mainly through the action of fire and creation.
Could there be something to do with the elements in the choice of these stones? 
Profile
Reply
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 1704
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| Posted 29-10-2011 at 21:23
I haven't thought on that angle Cerrig. Maybe the elements bit is best left for us heretics down-below.
Another example are two seriously denuded cairns NW of Dan yr Ogof caves (approx SN835167), shown on the OS map as just cairns. The landscape here is of broken up limestone, very angular and probably due to freeze-thaw action, with lots of rubble lying around. The two cairns stand out in the landscape as the stones used in their construction are rounded, an effect of rolling or water action. I'm not sure of the rock type here as they are so covered in lichen, but obviously a lot of effort went into collecting certain types (or maybe style) of stone.
Again it seems the builders were aiming for something that stood out from the local geology.
Profile
Reply
|
davidmorgan
Joined:
23-11-2006
Messages: 1599
from The New Forest
OFF-Line
| Posted 31-10-2011 at 16:13
Quote:
| cerrig wrote:
Could there be something to do with the elements in the choice of these stones? |
|
Quote:
| sem wrote:
Maybe the elements bit is best left for us heretics down-below? |
|
Hear hear, sem.
Yeah, I know that some people like to credit ancient man with abilities far beyond what is credible, but come on, cerrig, get a grip!
Profile
Reply
|
cerrig
Joined:
25-09-2009
Messages: 907
from Brecon Beacons
OFF-Line
| Posted 31-10-2011 at 22:22
I was just trying to add some new angles to the debate David. You may care to try doing something similar, for a change. I'm not suggesting that ancient man knew how the stones were formed, something I have already stated in the other thread. But there had to be some reason for their choice given the effort expended in gathering them. If you know better please do share your thoughts.
Profile
Reply
|
AngieLake
Joined:
12-03-2004
Messages: 550
from Newton Abbot, Devon
OFF-Line
|  Posted 31-10-2011 at 22:44
I don't often dip into the Forum these days, but did notice Sem's opening comment about the use of different stones in circles.
I don't know what was said in the previous discussion he referred to 'down below', so might be repeating this unnecessarily, but immediately thought of 'the one in Scotland'.. which I soon tracked down to East or Easter Aquorthies.
See Rune's comment under this lovely shot:
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=a312&file=index&do=showpic&pid=80694
Profile
Reply
|
davidmorgan
Joined:
23-11-2006
Messages: 1599
from The New Forest
OFF-Line
| Posted 01-11-2011 at 07:49
Sure, they used different stones, and probably with a purpose - e.g. those nice quartz embedded stones in Cornwall and that ammonite at Stoney Litttleton had to have been selected - but to imply that they knew the geological processes involved is rather extreme in my view.
Sorry if my style of "debate" appears to be a little aggressive - I always imagine that we're down the pub having a discussion over a few pints rather than being at some kind of intellectual conference - when people shoot from the hip I tend to shoot back (and it's difficult in this arena to see if someone's taking the p*ss or not). I'll try to moderate myself in future. Apologies for any offence given.
Profile
Reply
|
Martin_L
Joined:
04-10-2007
Messages: 782
OFF-Line
| Posted 01-11-2011 at 10:06
Not sure if this is a "British only" debate, but if it is of interest: The European funnel beaker culture, that built more than 20000 megalithic monuments in Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Poland mainly used the available glacial granite (mainly) erratics. Of course they obviously selected specially shaped, coloured or otherwise special stones at certain parts of the chambers.
Profile
Reply
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 2412
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 01-11-2011 at 13:13
but to imply that they knew the geological processes involved is rather extreme in my view.
But Cerrig didn't say that. His words in his post above yours were, "I'm not suggesting that ancient man knew how the stones were formed, something I have already stated in the other thread."
Not just you who has drawn a conclusion from something that wasn't actually said David, it seems to be very common on forums. Lots of people speed-read and accidentally get the wrong end of the stick.
Rune
Profile
Reply
|
cerrig
Joined:
25-09-2009
Messages: 907
from Brecon Beacons
OFF-Line
| Posted 01-11-2011 at 15:28
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-01 10:06, Martin_L wrote:
Not sure if this is a "British only" debate, but if it is of interest: The European funnel beaker culture, that built more than 20000 megalithic monuments in Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Poland mainly used the available glacial granite (mainly) erratics. Of course they obviously selected specially shaped, coloured or otherwise special stones at certain parts of the chambers.
|
|
Thanks for that Martin. Your input is very welcome. The unusual or special stones are the ones that interest me particularly, and why they were used in combination with the main type of stone.
Was this for some practical technical reason( ) , or for ceremonial/aesthetic ones  .
Profile
Reply
|
davidmorgan
Joined:
23-11-2006
Messages: 1599
from The New Forest
OFF-Line
| Posted 01-11-2011 at 16:09
Quote:
| On 2011-11-01 13:13, Runemage wrote:
but to imply that they knew the geological processes involved is rather extreme in my view.
But Cerrig didn't say that. His words in his post above yours were, "I'm not suggesting that ancient man knew how the stones were formed, something I have already stated in the other thread."
Not just you who has drawn a conclusion from something that wasn't actually said David, it seems to be very common on forums. Lots of people speed-read and accidentally get the wrong end of the stick.
Rune
|
|
Quote:
| On 2011-10-29 03:31, cerrig wrote:
Sandstone/Limestone formed mainly through the action of water and decay. Bluestone/Granite formed mainly through the action of fire and creation.
Could there be something to do with the elements in the choice of these stones? |
|
"Lots of people speed-read and accidentally get the wrong end of the stick."
Profile
Reply
|
cerrig
Joined:
25-09-2009
Messages: 907
from Brecon Beacons
OFF-Line
| Posted 01-11-2011 at 16:49
David , If you can't think of anything worthwhile of your own to say on this, that's fine. Please feel free to repeat my quotes if you like. But I don't think anyone else needs to have my words explained to them, even if you find them difficult to swallow.
Profile
Reply
|
TheCaptain
Joined:
30-10-2003
Messages: 1482
from near Bristol
OFF-Line
| Posted 01-11-2011 at 17:04
I have no idea why the different stone types were used, but my favourite for different stones is at Alignements du Moulin S, St Just.
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=a312&file=index&do=showpic&pid=17707
Perhaps they just liked to use different stones when they could. A bit like using different coloured gravel or bricks in a modern construction.
Profile
Reply
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 2412
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 01-11-2011 at 20:43
What a fabulous concentration of unusual stones. This one's my favourite http://breizhistic.free.fr/SaintJust/drole_pierre.jpg
Profile
Reply
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 1704
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| Posted 01-11-2011 at 20:59
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-01 10:06, Martin_L wrote:
Not sure if this is a "British only" debate, but if it is of interest: The European funnel beaker culture, that built more than 20000 megalithic monuments in Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Poland mainly used the available glacial granite (mainly) erratics. Of course they obviously selected specially shaped, coloured or otherwise special stones at certain parts of the chambers.
|
|
Thanks Martin
The idea of special (ie non-local or unusually shaped local) stones has been my interest for a while. It's good to know that those isolated by fog on the other side of the channel had similar ideas.
Profile
Reply
|
TheCaptain
Joined:
30-10-2003
Messages: 1482
from near Bristol
OFF-Line
| Posted 02-11-2011 at 08:57
[quote]
On 2011-11-01 20:43, Runemage wrote:
What a fabulous concentration of unusual stones. This one's my favourite http://breizhistic.free.fr/SaintJust/drole_pierre.jpg
Yes, the whole area near St Just is rather special. I must try and get there again on a nice sunny day, rather than the drizzly grey afternoon I rushed around the site. But its a bit too far for a day trip from my sisters, and a detour from the St Malo Ferry to be able to spend enough time there. But one day I'll be back.
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=a312&file=index&do=showpic&pid=17745
Profile
Reply
|
Martin_L
Joined:
04-10-2007
Messages: 782
OFF-Line
| Posted 02-11-2011 at 16:25
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-01 20:59, sem wrote:
[...] It's good to know that those isolated by fog on the other side of the channel had similar ideas [...]
|
|
Thanks Sem and Cerrig
1) regarding type of rock:
In general the mentioned European Funnel Beaker culture (isolated by fog.....  yes indeed haha) seemed to prefer the easily available sources. These often were only granite erratics . Unfortunately it is hard to tell how many erratics there originally were and if they possibly sometimes/often decided to transport some special ones from a more distant area when the local ones were not "good" enough. In (few) areas where local rocks were available they also quarried.
2) regarding choice of specially shaped stones:
(again some observations from over the channel Funnel beaker culture)
The flatest surfaces of the glacially smoothened erratics often were placed at the chamber entrances. Example: http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=a312&file=index&do=showpic&pid=45232
More rare erratics with two flat faces (in an angle of 90° so one flat side faced towards the passage and the other towards the chamber are frequently found)
Example:
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=a312&file=index&do=showpic&pid=48095
And there are several examples where the erratics used to cover the chamber at the entrance have a significant flat surface.
3 Examples:
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=a312&file=index&do=showpic&pid=74541
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=a312&file=index&do=showpic&pid=81320
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=a312&file=index&do=showpic&pid=75870
[ This message was edited by: Martin_L on 2011-11-02 16:34 ]
Profile
Reply
|
cerrig
Joined:
25-09-2009
Messages: 907
from Brecon Beacons
OFF-Line
| Posted 02-11-2011 at 18:30
Martin, would you know whether the covering stones were the same type as the main chamber stones.
Profile
Reply
|
Martin_L
Joined:
04-10-2007
Messages: 782
OFF-Line
| Posted 02-11-2011 at 19:46
Yes, here (Denmark, Germany, Netherlands) it usually is same type (granite) used for both the orthostats and capstones.
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-02 18:30, cerrig wrote:
Martin, would you know whether the covering stones were the same type as the main chamber stones.
|
|
[ This message was edited by: Martin_L on 2011-11-02 20:25 ]
Profile
Reply
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 1704
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| Posted 02-11-2011 at 22:42
davidmorgan wrote
"but to imply that they knew the geological processes involved is rather extreme in my view"
I agree, but they would have been well aware of rock types being associated with each other. eg in SWales millstone grit was laid down upon carboniferous limestone, which in turn had been laid down upon old red sandstone. This can be clearly seen at various places. However, glacial erratics often appear outside this layering and as MartinL said (albeit in a different location), they are often treated as special.
These three types of rock also have properties/uses that ancient man considered important. The millstone grit has quartz pebbles in it and even without considering the "mysteries properties" was obviously much-prized and used in monuments. Limestone contains veins of chert, which after flint and obsidian is the best rock for making tools. Old red sandstone is, as it's name suggests, red and has been used exclusively for some cairns in this area.
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=30387
Even without hypothesizing on magical properties for these different types (eg ors/red ochre = red = blood/amniotic fluid = birth/rebirth), I would suggest our ancestors were well aware of rock types and how they could use them.
Profile
Reply
|
Main News