h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

You say: ".....To this day, some claim that Merlin's magic was involved, which is roughly as plausible as the still-espoused theory that the bluestones were ice-age erratics – modern geologists reckon that the ice-sheet did not extend as far south as Wiltshire. The ice-sheet theory was definitively disproved in 1994 using chlorine-36 dating." That's all pretty pompous, if I may say so. The human transport theory for the bluestones is far more preposterous than the "glacial erratic" theory. Some modern geologists say the ice did not reach Salisbury Plain, and others disagree. The ice certainly reached the eastern part of Somerset, and so there may well have been erratics in that area. There are many erratic pebbles and stones on Salisbury Plain that have not been adequately explained. So the chlorine 63 date definitively disproved the ice-sheet theory? Sorry, but you've got that wrong too. it proved nothing and may not even be accurate-- even if the date is right, it proves only that there may have been about 40,000 years of weathering / exposure on the stone surface. That date certainly does nothing to help the human transport theory either. It is probably best dismissed.......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/southwest/sites/local_history/pages/bluestones.shtml

Also,

'So the chlorine 63 date definitively disproved the ice-sheet theory? Sorry, but you've got that wrong too. it proved nothing and may not even be accurate-- even if the date is right, it proves only that there may have been about 40,000 years of weathering / exposure on the stone surface'.

That's not what we said. We said that the chlorine-36 expt proves that there was only about 14000 years of weathering.

"The ice-sheet theory was definitively disproved in 1994 using chlorine-36 dating."
Not so fast, you guys!! You have got this all wrong. The dating exercise you are referring to has been heavily criticised by other geologists. It is entirely useless -- we do not know where the sample came from -- it was from a rock fragment from one of the collections. Unless you know precisely where a sample came from, ie what its exposure to cosmic radiation and weathering might have been, you can say NOTHING reliable or scientific about the age of the stone surface you are purportedly talking about. And to say anything sensible, you need at least two different dating techniques, based on the characteristics of the rock. Kindly forget that date and revise your opinions. Have a look here for some of the up-to-date geology on the bluestones:
http://www.brianjohn.f2s.com/enigma1.html

One of the problems with collaborative entries like this is that it is hard to remember who contributed which bit. As the editor of this piece, I'll have to hunt around to see where the theory of the dating came from. I'll get back to you...

I think it might've come from me, but too many RL issues are in the way at the moment for me to do anything at the moment.

Yes, it was you, BigAl, who said it. I've found your posting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F1790572?thread=1501476#p17396350 I can't judge between what BigAl says and what littlebluemountain says. The point BigAl makes, though, about finding a part-hewn rock of the same type in the Prescilli Mountains was left out of the Entry. Should it go in? It does seem to provide evidence for the human transport theory.

Well, I'd like to do some more research and update that bit if necessary. The RL issue is that I've been made redundant w.e.f. 30th September, so I'm busy trying to get a replacement job. However, maybe I'll have some time at home in October when I can check the facts/opinions of this Entry.

A

If you're at home in October, BigAl, spend the time on trying to find a new job. Don't waste it on h2g2 unless you really have the time to spare.

I've got 3 things in the pipeline at present. Also I had an interview today which I'm waiting to hear back from. I'm a bit despondent about it though. It took 3 hours to travel to the interview, which lasted 30 minutes. Also, although the questions weren't particularly difficult (suspicious in itself - were they just going through the motions 'coz they've already got someone else lined up ), I didn't answer them very well either

The point BigAl makes, though, about finding a part-hewn rock of the same type in the Prescilli Mountains was left out of the Entry. Should it go in? It does seem to provide evidence for the human transport theory.'

Yes, I think it should.
I've just been watching the BBC Timewatch programme where a team of archaeologists from Bournemouth Uni have done a new excavation. They also fimed at Carn Menyn which actually showed one of the bluestones lying on the ground (broken in half, which accounts for it not having been transported), and it is a size and shape which would allow it to slot straight into the bluestone circle and not look out of place.

The archaeology team also showed evidence that Stonehenge was a centre of healing with people, such as the Amesbury Archer, coming from as far afield as the Swiss Alps to benefit from its healing powers.

Ill try and look carefully through this Entry over the next week, and then suggest a few ways in which it might be updated.