8th October 2009, 02:11 PM
Has anyone seen the site report? It strikes me as odd that the holes were decided to have contained bluestones by the discovery of fragments of blue stone in them. The blue stone dosn't flake or corrode in situ does it?
Could the stone fragments have been deposited there as a totem of the more powerful blue stones of nearby Stonehenge to augment whatever was really in the holes at Bluestonehenge? A sort of supercharged post-packing material perhaps. I'm with Truthseeker and Wizard Luxas on this one so far}
Of course I'm sure that the fragments are in the right context and of a form to prove that bluestones were indeed there in stu (is this possible?), but just going from the press reports it appears conclusions have been jumped to.
Could the stone fragments have been deposited there as a totem of the more powerful blue stones of nearby Stonehenge to augment whatever was really in the holes at Bluestonehenge? A sort of supercharged post-packing material perhaps. I'm with Truthseeker and Wizard Luxas on this one so far}
Of course I'm sure that the fragments are in the right context and of a form to prove that bluestones were indeed there in stu (is this possible?), but just going from the press reports it appears conclusions have been jumped to.