Featured Title:
Free book with orders of £10 or over in our shop |
 |
| Winter Solstice Greetings Cards |
 |
| Login |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like your own home page, fewer ads, and your contributions link to your page. |
| Who's Online |
There are currently, 129 guests and 6 members online.
You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here |
| |
Moderated by : Andy B , TimPrevett , coldrum , Klingon , MickM , TheCaptain , bat400 , davidmorgan , Runemage , SolarMegalith , sem
The Megalithic Portal and Megalith Map : Index >>
Stones Forum >> Stone Type
|
 |
| Author |
Stone Type |
cerrig
Joined:
25-09-2009
Messages: 907
from Brecon Beacons
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 02-11-2011 at 23:59
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-02 19:46, Martin_L wrote:
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.
|
|
Martin, what about the stones that were used in the covering mounds?
[ This message was edited by: Martin_L on 2011-11-02 20:25 ]
|
|
 Profile
 Reply
|
karloff
Joined:
20-10-2006
Messages: 604
OFF-Line
| Posted 03-11-2011 at 10:18
Quote:
|
On 2011-10-28 23:46, sem wrote:
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?
|
|
Hi
Nice topic Sem!
The choice of materials used in the construction of prehistoric sites does seem to have deliberate messages. Apart from the more famous examples (SH etc) I know of one late Iron Age enclosure which seems to "mirror" the geology of the surrounding landscape. Half of the monument is walled with one particular rock whilst the other with another reflecting the direction from which the stone originates. What's particularly interesting is that this site may have represented a trading place between Iron Age tribes so the utilisation of these particular rock types may reflect an idea of unity or shared investment. Liminality perhaps?
Profile
Reply
|
caradoc68
Joined:
24-06-2010
Messages: 34
from Yeovil
OFF-Line
| Posted 19-11-2011 at 11:29
How I love these Megalithic debates, as one comment can lead to all an all out warfare, it was only one question ! and by the end it turned into over 300 years of monument building where idea's would of changed away about the type and shape of rock used anyway.
I thing it was importuned for these early monument builders to get the type and shape of these rocks right, but on the other hand you wounded want to be carrying these rocks to far so they would of been using local stone most of the time any way.
Profile
Reply
|
karloff
Joined:
20-10-2006
Messages: 604
OFF-Line
| Posted 21-11-2011 at 11:24
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-19 11:29, caradoc68 wrote:
I thing it was importuned for these early monument builders to get the type and shape of these rocks right, but on the other hand you wounded want to be carrying these rocks to far so they would of been using local stone most of the time any way.
|
|
Hi
Or, perhaps the act of moving monoliths was a reason unto itself. The effort involved may have been an integral part of the building process without which there was no point to the monument.
Maybe it was not just the choice of stone from West Wales , it was also the use of people to move them to Salisbury Plain. Perhaps people from two different cultures/tribes/clans working alongside each other was the reason as well as a physical joining of two landscapes as embodied within the monument.
Profile
Reply
|
caradoc68
Joined:
24-06-2010
Messages: 34
from Yeovil
OFF-Line
| Posted 23-11-2011 at 10:06
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-21 11:24, karloff wrote:
Hi
Or, perhaps the act of moving monoliths was a reason unto itself. The effort involved may have been an integral part of the building process without which there was no point to the monument.
Maybe it was not just the choice of stone from West Wales , it was also the use of people to move them to Salisbury Plain. Perhaps people from two different cultures/tribes/clans working alongside each other was the reason as well as a physical joining of two landscapes as embodied within the monument.
|
|
This is a very good point most Archaeologists tell you how but not why ! I like the idea of clans coming together for one goal that is to build a monument and yes I think it would straighten the ties between the tribes/clans.
Stonehenge is a very large circle and l don't think it should be used as a blueprint for the rest of Britain, even though it is my believe that the blue stones were brought from the west because that is where the sun sets, but that is a different story.
I did have the Grey Wethers stone circles in Dartmoor in mind when I wrote this , as all the stones are of the same shape that is a flat slab type even though a few are a strange shape the over all shape is flat slab and all the same hight, and all of local granite. I did hear once that these two stone circles could of been the efforts of two tribes coming to gether to build one circle each, one from South Dartmoor " South circle" and one from North Dartmoor "North circle". This could of been to straighten the ties between two tribes/clans, as to what point perhaps it was to trade a communicate ?.
[ This message was edited by: caradoc68 on 2011-11-23 10:09 ]
Profile
Reply
| |
| Go to Page: 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
IMPORTANT NOTES: This site uses COOKIES. Please do not use this web site if you do not agree to our Terms and Conditions of use.
If you plan to visit ancient sites in person, please make sure you follow our Charter.
Articles, photographs and comments are the property of their respective authors or contributors, please contact them for permission to reproduce. Site design ©1997-2012 Andy Burnham.
|
Main News