I think the problem is that there are no other glacial erratics on Salisbury plain. At all. So it was either the glacier was very particular, or it's the old 'they couldn't possibly have moved them, because it was ages ago' arguement...

I came across these comments on the subject -

"The question of how the stones were transported is not important. Professor Stephens, formerly of Swansea University, was wont to declare: ' You'd be amazed what you can achieve of a Saturday afternoon, dear boy.' And he was probably right. Putting up Stonehenge is no bother if you have a mind to it. Yet this thought did not enter the heads of those who suggested that only a glacier could have transported the bluestones to Wiltshire - (what nonsense, there is no evidence of glaciation in south Gloucestershire and Wiltshire), but I saw this ridiculous theory on the T.V. less than 12 months ago. Unbelievable. That's archaeologists for you- honestly, the rubbish they spout at times..( "

Personally, i think it's an open question. IF glaciers got there then maybe its feasible the lack of other bluestones could be accounted for by the fact that they were all brought in a tight bunch and deposited in an end moraine in one small area.

On the other hand, humans shifting 4 ton bluestones 150 miles seems less of a big deal than humans shifting 40 ton sarsens 20 miles. Truth is though, one of the world's most widely known scientific facts is that "Druids brought Stonehenge from Wales" and that's not going to change anytime soon.

I believe the bluestone found off the Welsh coast (in the Cleddau estuary) was a stone lost when a group had tried to re-enact the transportation of these stones to Stonehenge! Even with modern technology they couldn't manage it; doesn't mean it didn't happen though.

I haven't had time to look through the threads to follow the discussion but if anyone's interested, some researchers at Sheffield have put together a fantastic map of the last British ice sheet - including the limits of transported erratics. Scroll down the link to find a pdf file of the southern UK map - there's no evidence of glaciers in the area.

http://www.shef.ac.uk/geography/staff/clark_chris/britice.html

Just caught up on this debate. Quite intriguing to see how personal and vicious some people get, simply because a sacred cow is held up for close examination. It's high time that this particular sacred cow (namely the Human Transport myth relating to the bluestones) was looked at carefully, because it has changed subtly from being a theory in 1921 to being "the truth" today. OK -- a lot of people WANT to believe it, for a variety of reasons, and feel threatened when somebody comes along and questions it, but can we have a bit more tolerance here?

There are two theories -- the glacial theory (which is the one HH Thomas would have accepted quite happily in 1921 if he had known that there are glacial deposits on the eastern side of the Bristol Channel) and the human transport theory. As many people have pointed out, there is not a single piece of evidence to support the latter, whereas there is quite a lot of evidence to support the former. So on the balance of probablilities, the glacial transport theory has to be the one to go for -- until some "killer fact" comes along which will sort out the debate once and for all.

The arguments are laid out in a new book. Info here:
http://www.bluestone-enigma.co.uk

By the way, nobody is talking here about the Last Glaciation. We are talking of a much older ice cover -- some info from new glacier modelling work here:
http://www.brianjohn.f2s.com/enigma7.html

how would you tie a massive rock for dragging?

wouldnt the rope being dragged wear out under the weight and pressure of the stone?

i dont have any ideas at all.

it just seems that dragging a rope under stone would wear it out really quick

i dont think you would get the push pull effect, the reason it does it with cars is because they are on wheels, i dont think a massive stone would jump forward as it started to move, it would just eventually start moving.

though im probably wrong as ive never tryed to pull a rock.

so we can safely say that we dont know then?

theres a few different ways it could have been done, no one knows for sure.

it still doesnt answer why they even bothered though.

Bump.

Good to see the thread is up and running again. Thought it might have been permanently shut off.......

Re the moving of big stones here and there, I have no problem with that, although in some cases I bet that some of the movement from A to B was achieved by ice, especially on the fringes of the upland areas of the UK. I suspect that very often, ice has not even been considered as a transporting agent.

The point is that just because you believe that Neolithic tribes were capable of transporting stones from A to B, that does not mean they actually did it. According top Steve Burrow, in every single case in Wales where big stones have been used in megalithic settings, the stones have come from the immediate vicinity. In fact, the availability of stone was the prime factor in fixing location. Why should Stonehenge have been any different? If you guys are so determined to maintain the human transport theory, let's see the colour of your evidence. I ain't seen any yet......

While there has been a passage of some time, the recent findings of Mike Parker Pearson at some of the bluestone Quarries in the preseli's claim to have located almost down to the sockets where certain bluestones where quarried out of the rock face.