Gnu had three questions which deserve to be dealt with:

1. So, if they found "holes" how do they know the Welsh put them there?

2. How do they know the stones that were in the holes were blue? and Welsh?

3. And, where are the stones now?

All of these, of course, are "answered", if at all, by inferences drawn. And I can only guess what the archaeologists have done and thought, but here are my best guesses:

1. They have previously, as I understand it, concluded that Stonehenge itself is of Welsh origin (on bases which I disremember, other than the origin of the stone). They have, I know from previous reading in Smithsonian Magazine, done a lot of radioactive carbon analysis of remains of wood and charcoal at Stonehenge, leading to estimates of time of construction, enlargement, and use. They will of course have done similar studies at Bluestonehenge, arriving at their dating of that site. They know a good deal about ancient trade and religious routes at relevant times, and as I recall they have figured out the route by which the stones were brought to the Stonehenge site. They would take the two sites' proximity to Wales into account, along with whatever they know about culture, politics, and trade in Wales at those times. And I am confident there are a lot of other considerations I don't know of or have forgotten.

2. Stonehenge was built of a particular igneous stone called--you guessed it--bluestone, from a deposit which, as I remember, is in Wales. As I think I recall reading, this particular stone is ONLY found at that site, at least within any remotely feasible distance. Bluestone is so called, I recall, because when wet it is, yes, bluish. Despite the emptiness of the holes, there would be stone debris, rubble from broken pillars, chips from final shaping, etc., which would establish the building material there. And the chemical nature of the "new" site's stone chips could be definitively shown as identical with that at the quarry site and at Stonehenge.

3. Since the bluestone was eventually removed from this "new" older site, it was clearly taken somewhere. Back to the quarry, over a hundred miles away through mountainous terrain, as I recall? No way, Jay. Just up the road to Stonehenge is the best guess. Stonehenge was originally built with posts of wood according to Smithsonian, and was later (how much later, I have no recollection) improved or developed, at least partly with the stones from the older site just discovered. At least that seems the best inference to draw.

Yes, there's a lot of guesswork in all this, but that's the nature of archeology.

Dave Oesterreich