Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Scientists Solve Mystery of the Origin of Stonehenge Megaliths (npr.org) 104

Posted by BeauHD from the connecting-the-dots dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: Researchers have announced that they have solved a centuries-long mystery surrounding the origin of most of the large stones that make up the outer ring of Stonehenge, in an article published to the journal Science Advances on Wednesday. Using geochemical data, researchers have determined that 50 of the 52 large stones, sarsen megaliths, originated from the West Woods in Wiltshire, England, some 15 miles from where the prehistoric monument stands. The smaller stones near the center of the structure, called bluestones, had previously been traced to Wales, nearly 125 miles away. Researchers still don't know exactly how the 30-ton stones were transported. "How they were moved to the site is still really the subject of speculation," David Nash, University of Brighton geomorphologist and lead researcher on the study, told Reuters.

"Given the size of the stones, they must have either been dragged or moved on rollers to Stonehenge. We don't know the exact route but at least we now have a starting point and an endpoint."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientists Solve Mystery of the Origin of Stonehenge Megaliths More

Scientists Solve Mystery of the Origin of Stonehenge Megaliths

Comments Filter:

  • "Researchers still don't know exactly how the 30-ton stones were transported."

    And this fits the definition of "solved" how?

    • Re:Solved? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Thursday July 30, 2020 @08:08AM (#60346879) Homepage

      Let's see if this helps:

      https://www.dictionary.com/bro... [dictionary.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Scientists Solve Mystery of the Origin of Stonehenge Megaliths

      They know where they came from, not how they got where they are now.

    • 'cos they know where they came from. The "Mystery of the Origin" was solved - just as it says in the headline (you don't even need to rtfa) - just not the haulage company they used.

    • The solved the mystery of the ORIGIN, not transportation method.

    • My bad - still need to wake up and read clearly.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Typical /.

        One silly mistake generates more replies than anything else.

        Mod +1 for fessing up!

    • "Researchers still don't know exactly how the 30-ton stones were transported."

      I'm not saying it was aliens.....

      • People think that somehow people 10 000 years ago were dumb. They were not, they were just as smart as we are, they just didn't have the tools and knowledge that we have now. They probably used rollers or greased logs, ropes and blocks. With enough leverage they could easily move the blocks, albeit slowly, but I guess they did have the time.

        • They probably used rollers or greased logs, ropes and blocks.

          Coincidentally, there was a recent discovery of rope-twisters from about 40kyr ago ... but I can't find the damned reference. Fsck it!.

          OK, found it - Grauniad article [theguardian.com]. A somewhat older article [sciencedaily.com].

          Long story short : rope was a really important - and old - technology, but it doesn't preserve well. A related, and similarly poorly preserved, technology is that of stitching and tailoring cloting - which was probably rather important in the spread of hum

      • It is highly likely built by aliens, as the builders were horticulturists and the native population were hunter-gatherers.

      • Purpose-built canal and barges, disassembled when the job was done.

      • An annoying aspect to how people generally, and popular news/entertainment in particular responds to the statement "we don't know they moved the giant stones tens or hundreds of miles" is to imagine that it means "there is no way we know of that ancient people could have moved these stones, it's like MAGIC!".

        The truth is SEVERAL ways are known by which it could have been done, we just don't know from actual physical evidence which one they used.

    • They said they solved the origin not the method of relocation. But whopping great Whips could be the answer!
    • They solved where the stones came from not how the stones got there. It’s in the title.

    • "Researchers still don't know exactly how the 30-ton stones were transported."

      Well, looking at a map, the River Avon runs near both of these spots. That would be my first suspect.

      • the River Avon runs near both of these spots. That would be my first suspect.

        Care to do some back-of-the-thumbnail calculations on how large a raft you'd need to make (of wood, density 500-700 kg/m^3) to support a 30 ton megalith, then compare it with the depth of the river Avon.

        Then ... how are you going to move it? Polers poling from on top of the raft/ megalith construction? Add their weight into the calculation. People pulling from the river bank - except where the bank is boggy.

        To quote my geography

  • I skimmed the paper this references. The analysis is valid.

    I'm just wondering if there is an identifiable quarry site for either of the two sources?

    That would be very interesting to visit.

    • Sarsen is a relict deposit, what remains after the dissolution of a significant thickness of Chalk. There are cappings of it, several metres thick, in many places across S England, south of the line of maximum glacial extent.

      One interesting idea (novel to me on considering your question, but unlikely to be unique) is that the probable origin of the British megalithic culture in Orkney had it's largest stone circle made of stones from each part of the island, presumably hauled to the central site by people

  • I'm not saying they were extra-terrestrial in origin, but...

    • Get a haircut, hippie!

    • Correct, rock is almost entirely extra-terrestrial, in fact it is molecularity pre-Solar. It appears localized almost entirely due to localized patterns of plastic deformation, but some of these rocks might have erupted from many worlds, under many stars.

  • So, the center stones were imported from 125 miles away. After going to all that trouble with shipping, they said "Screw it, we'll buy locally-sourced stones"

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Zocalo ( 252965 )
      I can only assume that there was some significance to the type or origin of the stones from 125 miles away in Wales that would encourage them to go to such lengths. They do naturally calf from the cliff face in blocks, so perhaps it was just easier to locate suitable stones in the Preselli hills then drag them 125 miles than it was to quarry and shape local blocks, either because stoneworking wasn't that advanced when construction started or they were trying to complete the works before some arbitrary dead

      • Re:Laziness? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by cusco ( 717999 ) <brian@bixby.gmail@com> on Thursday July 30, 2020 @11:18AM (#60347785)

        I can't remember the source now, but it's claimed that the bluestones were likely looted from an earlier religious site considerably closer to their point of origin. There are apparently two sets of weather-caused patinas on them, indicating that they were in one place for a long time before being moved to their current location and weathering some more. I suppose it would be the ancient equivalent of the Spanish building churches on the ruins of Inca and Aztec temples.

        • the Spanish building churches on the ruins of Inca and Aztec temples.

          More like the Spanish building churches using stone looted from demolished Mayan (etc) constructions.

          As we were having a walk today, the wife noticed a sign saying "site of Castle X" and asked "Where is the castle?" We were just beside a gate which used stonking great lintel stones as gateposts (presumably from the castle) in a drystone wall including numerous squared-off blocks of stone (also likely looted from the castle).

          As soon as a

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by cusco ( 717999 )

            Yes, and no. The Inca and Aztec temples hadn't so much "fallen out of use" as they were deliberately demolished by the Spanish barbarians and many of the stones were used to construct the churches. The profanation of sacred ground has always been a basic Catholic missionary tactic. "Prove" to the locals that your deity is more powerful than theirs by destroying their holy place and constructing your own in its place.

            • The profanation of sacred ground has always been a basic Catholic missionary tactic.

              The Babylonians learned that trick from the Assyrians (along with some interesting ways of peeling people) before the Romans were a glint in an Etruscan potter's eye. Very much SOP.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Reziac ( 43301 ) *

        Here's my question: okay, so they're a match to some location waaaay over yonder. But have closer possible sources been *eliminated*? that is, are they sure there are no closer sources? Given that any rock from the same geological event should have the same chemical signatures, and lava flows can cover hundreds of square miles, seems to me this is possible -- maybe we just haven't found the quarry yet.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Zocalo ( 252965 )
          I think the scientific evidence for the Preseli quarry was pretty conclusive, but did leave some wiggle room. The UK is a real patchwork of rocks, each with their own local quirks within sub-types of the same stone, hence the high degree of certainty. That said, how much time and effort would it actually take neolithic labour to haul stones over 125 miles? Preseli is fairly near the Welsh coast (about 10km), so if we assume they were able to move them by sea using rafts, then that simplifies the logistics

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Reziac ( 43301 ) *

            Given that, I think you'd need to take cores every mile or so, and assume that the sources may now be under 10+ feet of dirt, to be really conclusive. But good point that anyone capable of building this in the first place was probably equally capable of using oxen and rafts and rollers, and of finding a more-convenient water route, and given that labor was cheap, may not have thought 125 miles was all that daunting. We need to remember that until a mere hundred years ago or so, every human structure, no mat

            • BTW what is the first historical record of Stonehenge? was it mentioned by the Romans?

              No Roman mention of it TTBOMK. Which is slightly surprising, since in their utilitarian way, they did pay considerable attention to the beliefs of subdued people - cultural control being cheaper and surer than encamped armies.

              Given that, I think you'd need to take cores every mile or so

              I think you're misunderstanding the significance of the core specimen. It's not about the sediment surrounding or overlaying the sarsen - t

        • You're conflating two things. The "bluestones" are doleritic tuffs from Presceli in west Wales, transported by grunt labour from some 200km away. Their typical weight is 1500 to 2000 kg. The other stones are the "sarsen" trilithons some of which come from about 30km from Stonehenge's site, and weigh tens of tonnes each.

          The doleritic tuffs are volcanic rocks, but ashfall rather than lava, and are over 400 million years old. The sarsens are relict sandstones (calcite cemented) formed by the dissolution and r

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Reziac ( 43301 ) *

            Thanks, that's exactly what I was wondering about.

            A couple tons is not so much for a gang of men or a team of oxen, even if they're dragging it. A teacher of my acquaintance demo'd that to her 8th graders by hitching them up to a 1 ton construction weight -- they had no trouble pulling it across wet grass.

            • they had no trouble pulling it across wet grass.

              I mentioned Orkney several times, and one interesting snippet from a program filmed there (with a ton-ish specimen) was the effectiveness of wet seaweed as a lubricant for the stone - on a skid.

              Obviously of more limited use in the Stonehenge case, but around the Severn crossing - however they did it - potentially relevant.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Reziac ( 43301 ) *

                And mud, especially clay, can be so slippery that the durn thing is likely to get away from you. Aforementioned teacher (being expert in ancient history) likes to point out that Nile River mud is so slick that you almost can't stand up on it, and made a perfect lubricant for moving large stone blocks.

      • ... or they were trying to complete the works before some arbitrary deadline...

        Bad management practices of the prehistoric.

  • Whoever placed the stones there did it so generations that followed would waste decades trying to figure out why the stones were placed there. Every time another stone was placed in the circle, they'd raise a glass and laugh about what was to come.

  • Moving on Rollers (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward

    "Given the size of the stones, they must have either been dragged or moved on rollers to Stonehenge. We don't know the exact route but at least we now have a starting point and an endpoint."

    During lockdown, I decided to clean up a pile of building rubble behind my house, which included a number of concrete slabs: I'd say around 3-4 feet by 2 or so feet by 8-10 inches thick. They'd originally been cast in the ground, so only the top side was close to flat, the other sides were more rough. Just a bit too hea

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

      "Given the size of the stones, they must have either been dragged or moved on rollers to Stonehenge. We don't know the exact route but at least we now have a starting point and an endpoint."

      During lockdown, I decided to clean up a pile of building rubble behind my house, which included a number of concrete slabs: I'd say around 3-4 feet by 2 or so feet by 8-10 inches thick. They'd originally been cast in the ground, so only the top side was close to flat, the other sides were more rough. Just a bit too heavy for me to pick up to stand on edge, let alone move (and due to lockdown I had to do it alone, couldn't get outside help). I had some pieces of wooden pole (around 2 inches in diameter) lying around, so I decided to try the roller method as depicted on all sorts of stone-age/Pyramid/Stonehenge representations. And I had a (modern-day) 7-foot metal bar that was convenient to use as a lever.

      I eventually got all the slab pieces moved to where I wanted them (some 25 feet away) - often by inching them along with the help of the lever bar on the loose soil more than rolling them. In short, with a lot more energy, time and swearing than I budgeted for. The nice pictures makes one believe it makes things a lot easier than it is in reality.

      Rolling works, but you need teams of people pulling/pushing to make sure the force is even, plus other people whose job it is to pick up/lay down the rollers.

    • A common strategy of modern "re-enactors" of megalith construction is to put the stone (irregular, as you say) onto a "skid" or "sledge". Then the rollers are working against the relatively smooth surface of the skid's logs, instead of the stone itself.

      The technique is in common use on construction sites to this day [duckduckgo.com].

      You'll remember for the next time? Or you'll ensure that there isn't a next time? I'd have drilled or chiselled a hole into the slabs, then made a "feather and wedge [duckduckgo.com]" from anything suitable I

  • Wheels, cylinders or runners moved by manpower with the help of harness animals. Next question?

    • a more simple solution was demonstrated here at youtube.com/watch?v=E5pZ7uR6v8c

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by cusco ( 717999 )

      Stonehenge dates to well before harnessing of draft animals had arrived in western Europe.

      You'd be surprised what a team of motivated people can do with nothing more than sticks and rope. On Easter Island the team working with Thor Heyerdahl found that 40-some people hauling on ropes were sufficient to pull a 13 foot tall moai statue on level ground, and rather rapidly at that once they got the thing moving. It took less than a dozen people just a couple of days with wooden levers and piles of rock to sta

      • We may have the advantage on the ancients in the use of technology, but their project management skills put ours to shame.

        It's amazing what religion can do for you. Astronomical megaliths and a two for one special on atrocities. Thanks, but I'll take modern day project management. A pointy haired boss is easier to deal with than a pointy stick priest.

        Modern project management is pretty capable too. The Apollo project coordinated the efforts of upwards of 400,000 people and accomplished a task that the small-minded among us still believe is impossible, a task the builders of Stonehenge might have dreamed about in idle momen

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cusco ( 717999 )

          It's a different set of talents when you have things like writing, spreadsheets and telephones at your disposal. The Inca, Egyptians, pre-literate Chinese and Indonesians all sculpted entire valleys with work crews of up to 100,000 people, providing food, shelter and clothing for them during the project (generally carried out during non-productive agricultural periods such as the Nile flood or the Andean winter). Imagine managing the 20,000 people building Sacsayhuaman with just quipus, runners and a clay

  • 15 miles is a huge distance to drag something that big ...back then at least a few days journey .. wonder what motivated then to move it to that spot. Same thing with the pyramids in Egypt, why didn't they build the pyramids right in Tura where the quarry was instead of a ten kilometers away in Giza.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The problem is that history is pretty much a joke subject, it pretends to be scientific but it's more akin to writing fiction half the time.

      It wasn't long ago that we were told the stones had been geologically linked to a site in Wales 125 miles away and that was the solution to the mystery. Now we're told it's definitely 15 miles away, except two of the stones, which just happen to be from somewhere else, they just don't know where.

      It's not just Stonehenge of course, they've definitely proven how the likes

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cusco ( 717999 )

        The smaller bluestones are from Wales. The article is about the larger sarcens. Both have been definitively proved by crystal and mineral analysis.

        And outcroppings of solid rocks don't "erode away into lack of obviousness" in only 5,000 years.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cusco ( 717999 )

      That area is pretty flat, you can easily walk 20 miles in a day there. At Ollantaytambo the Spanish observed the Inca moving rocks three times that size down a mountainside, across a Class 5 rapids, several kilometers up a river valley and then a couple hundred meters more up another mountain to construct a temple. Their tools were rocks, levers, ropes, and several hundred people. (Then European diseases killed off 90% of their population and it all stopped.) People today really don't appreciate what an

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cusco ( 717999 )

        Oh, I forgot to mention that you also need a couple of teams with levers in the front to keep the stone from digging into the ground. Once it starts moving momentum helps a lot.

  • Swallows.

  • I remember reading that very same headline at least a dozen times in the last 40 years.

  • Iirc there was an article in archaeology magazine about this like a year ago.

  • They hired Swedes to move the stones. The Swedes waited for wintertime, then used their curling technology to transport the big blocks.

Slashdot Top Deals

"All the people are so happy now, their heads are caving in. I'm glad they are a snowman with protective rubber skin" -- They Might Be Giants

Close