Almost a year late, but I've finally posted two pics of the monoliths found in 2002 by the shore of the Stenness loch. These added weight to the idea that the stones for Brodgar/Stenness were transported by water to the 'construction site(s)'. http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/brodgar/building.htm -- Sigurd Towrie Blackhall - Kirbister - Stromness - Orkney Heritage of Orkney: www.orkneyjar.com Home: sigurd@orkneyjar.com Work: sigurd.towrie@orcadian.co.uk

Lots of interesting theories regarding how the stones were moved. But what ever method was used then it must be presumed that timber from a local source would have been used. If the stones were transported by water they would have had to be placed on a substantial raft to take the weight of stones and rollers would still have been needed to move them to their final resting place. Regarding the stones laying beside the loch and the ones that are said to lay beneath the loch, could it be possible that at one time an other stone circle could have existed where the loch is now, and that with the passing of time the area became flooded and eroded and the stone circle then fell down. If they took the time to prepare the Brodgar site and measure it so accurately then I am sure they would not have wasted a lot of effort in transporting stones they did not intend to use. The text mentions that scholar Aubrey Burl estimates that a work force of around 300 would have been available for construction work, which is based on an estimated population. I belive many early settlements still remain undiscovered, some may even lay beneath the lochs if the area did in fact flood at a later date. Estimates always make me uneasy, as they are usually based on some form of statistics, which reminds me of a famous statesman words "there are lies, damn lies and statistics! Another point to note on estimates is - the original estimate for the new Kirkwall Pier was quite a few million pounds below they final finished cost! Everyone will have heard about the stone statues on the Easter Islands, I remember a programme where the theory was that at one time the Island was heavily wooded but the natives cut down a lot of the trees for dwellings and moving the stones on rollers! Is the lack of trees on Orkney down to a larger population at the time of Brodgar, than previously though, who used the timber for construction, firewood etc. It is not uncommon for archeologist/scholars to revaluate their theories when new discoveries are made. Take care Grumpy.

On 27/11/03 at 01:26 Grumpy wrote: >If they took the time to prepare the Brodgar site and measure it so >accurately then I am sure they would not have wasted a lot of effort in >transporting stones they did not intend to use. Ah but who says they were not intending to use the stone. Perhaps it was discarded after being broken (the two stones could be part of one larger monolith)..... >Is the lack of trees on Orkney down to a larger population at the time of >Brodgar, than previously though, who used the timber for construction, >firewood etc. There's no doubt that what woodland existed in Orkney from the Mesolithic through to the Bronza Age suffered as much at the hands of the population as it did with climatic deterioration. (BTW Francis Pryor in his Britain BC touches upon population levels and his related theories - a good read) S.