Stonehenge: New Info On The Glacier Theory
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/5072664.stm AND
http://tinyurl.com/flwfe
Regards, Walter

Thanks Walter - makes so much more sense.

Sounds interesting.

Is there any evidence that the glaciers extended as far south as Stonehenge?

((I))

There have been several periods "ice age" over the UK from 10,000 years ago and back from there, extending as far south as the New Forest. In fact, remains of wooly Mammoths have been found on the Channel Islands.

I'll be interested to see how this plays out. In particular, where are the terminal moraines of the ice sheets capable of moving boulders of that size? Are there piles of left-over monoliths at Preseli that the builders didn't use?

(If you detect a note of disbelief in my questions, you are very astute.)

TTT

It's a very long time since I was taught anything about glaciation, but I share Robespierre's disbelief.

Whilst there was certainly ice over South Wales I would not be so sure about Salisbury Plain (at least not with any major transporting potential), and even if there had been I would find it difficult to think of any significant movement in what is virtually a due easterly direction.

Glacial erratic rocks have been found well south, but not of this size as far as I recall. Assuming the stones in question have been shaped by man they would have had to be much larger during transport by ice, and erratics of such size would be unlikely due to erosion by the ice itself and to freeze-thaw shattering. And if it is true surely there would still be others lying around for us to find now?

I came across this today.
http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/QUAK...TONEHENGE.html

ahotpoet,

I'm not certain I buy the ideas in that link. The idea that the loss of the landbridge between Britain and Europe was accompanied by earthquakes seems highly unlikely as part of a process which involved rising sea levels.

Hi wasleys
I have no idea as to the validity of any of these theories but wanted to add this information to the mix.
If anyone goes to visit Stonehenge, being aware of all this speculation would make for a more interesting experience.
I have never been there myself.

I'd like to hear more about the theory that the British Isles drifted away from the continent. I thought that only happened at tectonic boundaries (the nearest one of which is the mid-Atlantic rift).

The nonsense about the British Isles separating from Europe after the last glaciation via some process(es) related to plate tectonics is a nutball theory from a nutball source. The Brother Jonathan Gazette is full of that sort of thing and much of it makes pretty humorous reading - until you just can't stand it any more and need to return to Earth.

Robespierre,

Don't hold your breath. There was no 'drift' involved. The landbridge between Britain and the European mainland disappeared due to relative changes in land/sea levels due to ice melting and land rising after the glacial period.

What the pseudo-science babble about earthquakes fails to recognise is that its basic principles (when talking about Stonehenge) are astronomical, which brings us straight back to more sensible theories about the monument.

Having said that the thoughts about earthquakes and solar/lunar forces are interesting, even if of no likely interest to those who built Stonehenge.

I know full well that the islands arise from the same Eurasian plate substrate as the continent. I guess my tongue in cheek wasn't showing sufficiently in "I thought that only happened at tectonic boundaries..."