• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
why go to the trouble of chipping a piece from the stones then a few yards away chuck them?

dont seem like they thouht much of the blue stone or they would have kept it wouldnt they..yes they are buried now but at the time there aint any proof they actually buried them is there
 
TinFinger said:
why go to the trouble of chipping a piece from the stones then a few yards away chuck them?

dont seem like they thouht much of the blue stone or they would have kept it wouldnt they..yes they are buried now but at the time there aint any proof they actually buried them is there
In reality, these few bluestone chippings are all that remain of the luxurious, blue chip, gravel drive, which once encompassed the henge and decorously paved the ceremonial avenue. Imagine it, when Stonehenge was at its height of popularity, raked twice daily, by beautiful, semi-naked, naked, virgin, groundskeepers. ;)
 
raked twice daily, by beautiful, semi-naked, naked, virgin, groundskeepers.

It's like a film-show in his head.
 
raked twice daily, by beautiful, semi-naked, naked, virgin, groundskeepers.

Mmmm, lovely. Must've been a marvelous sight.

I bet they let the girls have a go too. ;)
 
I saw the Timewatch Documentary this week and whilst I enjoyed the show's explanation of Darvill and Wainwright's theories, I thought there were far too many 'maybes' and 'possiblies'. Just because I was born in 1972 doesn't make me a hippy. Things changed fast between the 50s and the 80s. So approximate dating to roughly the same century doesn't mean that the two ages of Stonehenge being used as a healing place and the burial of the archer were concurrent or even connected. Everyone must have had illnesses and injuries they had fought off. It's not like they had the NHS.

I await further theories and evidence retrieval with interest.
 
Stonehenge 'older than believed'

The new findings have implications for our understanding of Stonehenge
New findings at Stonehenge suggest its stones were erected much earlier than thought, challenging the site's conventional history.

A new excavation puts the stones' arrival at 3000 BC - almost 500 years earlier than originally thought - and suggests it was mainly a burial site.

The latest results are from a dig by the Stonehenge Riverside Project.

It is in conflict with recent research dating construction to 2300 BC and suggesting it was a healing centre.

The 2300 BC date was arrived at by carbon dating and was the major finding from an excavation inside the henge by professors Tim Darvill and Geoff Wainwright.

That dig was the subject of a BBC Timewatch documentary.

The latest theories, putting construction much earlier, result from an excavation at Aubrey Hole 7 - one of a circle of pits surrounding the stones - in August 2008. The researchers believe the pit probably held a standing stone.

The team suggests the 2300 BC date relates to the time when the stones were moved from the outer pits to the centre of the site.

The dig was directed by archaeologists Mike Parker-Pearson, Mike Pitts and Julian Richards for the Stonehenge Riverside Project.

The Aubrey Hole has already been excavated twice. The first time, when discovered in 1920, and again in 1935.

'Very exciting'

Mike Parker-Pearson, professor of archaeology at Sheffield University, revived an earlier theory that the holes had held bluestones as the evidence of crushed and compacted chalk had been recorded in 1920 in three of the pits.

Professor Parker-Pearson said: "It's very exciting that we have evidence for stones right from its beginnings around 3000 BC.

"That's almost 500 years earlier than anyone had thought.

"These stones were very closely associated with the remains of the dead. There were cremation burials from inside the holes holding the stones and also the areas around them."

The archaeologists suggest that very early in Stonehenge's history there were 56 Welsh bluestones standing in a ring - 87m (285ft) across.

The Stonehenge Riverside Project has been responsible for major excavation within the Stonehenge world heritage site over the past five years.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engl ... 660860.stm
 
I liked that.
It's true, we make so many assumptions about the intelligence of stone age people. We have to keep reminding ourselves that they had the same brain capacities and presumably the same reasoning powers as modern humans. I have no doubt at all that they had various ingenious methods that have been lost over time.
 
Very interesting. Can someone explain to me how he gets the block of concrete onto the pivot point in the first place? I see how adding wood underneath each side would raise it, but he would need something to act as a fulcrum before he could tilt it to add wood.
 
LaurenChurchill said:
Very interesting. Can someone explain to me how he gets the block of concrete onto the pivot point in the first place? I see how adding wood underneath each side would raise it, but he would need something to act as a fulcrum before he could tilt it to add wood.

Simplest answer: dig. Start by clearing a channel under the centre of the block. Slide wood beams underneath. Now start digging at one end (bracing the very end up with a beam to prevent it crashing down). When you've cleared out one end, knock out the support under that end.

Now the block is mainly resting on the previously-placed fulcrum. Add weight to the floating end as in the video, thus tilting the block to one side. Excavate under the other.

Now you can start rocking the block to & fro to raise it as he did in the video. Repeat as needed to achieve the desired height. There are probably other ways as well, but this is the first that came to mind.

It's all so blindingly obvious, it's amazing no one else has mentioned it before. Or perhaps they have!
 
Oh I see. That's pretty smart.

So would that have been the same technique he used for getting the small stone under the large square block? Because it looked like it was resting on concrete (though it could have been sand, now that I think about it).
 
LaurenChurchill said:
Oh I see. That's pretty smart.

So would that have been the same technique he used for getting the small stone under the large square block? Because it looked like it was resting on concrete (though it could have been sand, now that I think about it).

Could have done. Probably depends on the size of the block and small stone -- one could probably push the block up slightly onto a wedge, then slip the stone under the wedge, and so forth. Or set up a lever/fulcrum and tip the block just enough to roll the stone beneath it.
 
Was Stonehenge rebuilt by modern man?

I hope this isn't a repost but I couldn't bring anything up on it in a search. I stumbled across this article and it was the first I had ever heard of this. There is always more to any story and I knew FT was the place to flesh it out.

ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicstonehenge.htm
Link is dead. The MIA webpage (extinct since 2002(?)) can be accessed via the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20020204142445/http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicstonehenge.html
How They Rebuilt Stonehenge

For decades the official Stonehenge guidebooks have been full of fascinating facts and figures and theories surrounding the world's greatest prehistoric monument. What the glossy brochures do not mention, however, is the systematic rebuilding of the 4,000 year old stone circle throughout the 20th Century.

This is one of the dark secrets of history archaeologists don't talk about: The day they had the builders in at Stonehenge to recreate the most famous ancient monument in Britain as they thought it ought to look. ...

Comments, thoughts? I know sections have been restored of course. The point of the article seems to be that it was all put back together as anyone who happened to be overseeing the project at the time saw fit. If true, this could certainly be a contributing factor to why we can't definitively make heads or tails of the site.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
good find. i always knew it had been rebuilt in the early and late mid 20th century but didn't bother to find the sources or put it on any forums as i thought most people were aware of it. all thos edruids and pagans must feel a bit itchy at the facts now after visiting it and thinking it is a prehistoric monument. when in fact all it is is a modern estimation of what it could have looked like.
 
Re: Was Stonehenge rebuilt by modern man?

annunick said:
I hope this isn't a repost but I couldn't bring anything up on it in a search.
What?! :shock: Search brings up 29 threads with Stonehenge in the title.

Were you using the correct search button, the one UNDER the Black bar indicating Forums? (Not the box near the top right, which is for the magazine itself. Although that does not return anything for Stonehenge, surprisingly...)

This seems to be a common problem, as this is the second time in a couple of days I've had to point it out. Perhaps the Mods could discuss it, and suggest some changes to clarify things to TPTB...? And/or, maybe something could be added to the FAQs?
 
Unearthed: prehistoric site that could be 'little sister' to Stonehenge
Archaeologists have discovered a prehistoric site, dubbed 'Bluehenge', a mile away from Britain's famous circle of standing stones at Stonehenge.
By Laura Donnelly
Published: 9:04AM BST 03 Oct 2009

Researchers have named the after the colour of the 27 Welsh stones it once incorporated.

The new circle, unearthed in secret over the summer, is one of the most important prehistoric finds in decades, archaeologists say.

Already, dispute has begun about what the discovery means for Stonehenge, and what light it might shed on the reasons why both monuments were erected.

Bluehenge was put up 5,000 years ago – around the same time as work began on Stonehenge, and appears to be a miniature version of it, researchers say.

The two circles stood together for hundreds of years before Bluehenge was dismantled. Researchers believe its stones were later used to enlarge Stonehenge.

Bluehenge lies at the end of the 'Avenue' – a pathway that connected Stonehenge to the Avon. All that remains of the smaller circle are the holes of 27 giant stones set on a ramped mount. Chips of stone found in the holes appear to be the same as those used in Stonehenge.

The stone, made of Preseli Spotted Dolerite – a chemically altered igneous rock which is harder than granite – were mined in the Preseli Mountains in Pembrokeshire and dragged and floated 200 miles to the site on the banks of the river.

The new monument was discovered by Professor Mike Parker Pearson, of Sheffield University, who believes the monuments were linked to rituals of life and death.

Other archaeologists believe it is impossible to be certain about their purpose, and that given Stonehenge was created, used and modified over 1,400 years that it was likely to be used for many different things.

Professor Geoffrey Wainwright, who found the source of the Stonehenge stones in Wales with Professor Darvill, said: 'This [new] henge is very important because it forms part of the picture of ceremonial monuments in the area and puts Stonehenge into context.

'It's no longer Stonehenge standing alone, but it has to be seen in context with the landscape.'

Professor Tim Darvill, an expert on the monument, from Bournemouth University, said he wouldn't be surprised if more circles were still to be found.

Stonehenge was built and rebuilt over 600 years in three main phases.

The first, which began in 3000BC saw the creation of a ditch and bank which later enclosed a circle of 56 holes for posts or stones.

Around 2600BC the site was transformed into two circles of 82 blue stones brought from the Welsh mountains.

Then, 150 years later, the ancient Britons set up 50-ton sarsen stones quarried at Marlborough, 25 miles away.

The blue stones were dug up and repositioned, and the sarsens used to create the Stonehenge familiar today.

The new find changes this account of this history. It suggests that the creators of Stonehenge originally built two circles – one with 56 stones at Stonehenge, and another with 27 at Bluehenge, with the stones of the smaller circle eventually incorporated into the bigger one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... henge.html
 
Stonehenge boy 'was from the Med'
By Paul Rincon, Science reporter, BBC News

Chemical tests on teeth from an ancient burial near Stonehenge indicate that the person in the grave grew up around the Mediterranean Sea.

The bones belong to a teenager who died 3,550 years ago and was buried with a distinctive amber necklace.

The conclusions come from analysis of different forms of the elements oxygen and strontium in his tooth enamel.

Analysis on a previous skeleton found near Stonehenge showed that that person was also a migrant to the area.

The findings will be discussed at a science symposium in London to mark the 175th anniversary of the British Geological Survey (BGS).

The "Boy with the Amber Necklace", as he is known to archaeologists, was found in 2005, about 5km south-east of Stonehenge on Boscombe Down.

The remains of the teenager were discovered next to a Bronze Age burial mound, during roadworks for military housing.

"He's around 14 or 15 years old and he's buried with this beautiful necklace," said Professor Jane Evans, head of archaeological science for the BGS.

"The position of his burial, the fact he's near Stonehenge, and the necklace all suggest he's of significant status."

Dr Andrew Fitzpatrick, of Wessex Archaeology, backed this interpretation: "Amber necklaces are not common finds," he told BBC News.

"Most archaeologists would say that when you find burials like this... people who can get these rare and exotic materials are people of some importance."

Professor Evans likened Stonehenge in the Bronze Age to Westminster Abbey today - a place where the "great and the good" were buried.

Tooth enamel forms in a child's first few years, so it stores a chemical record of the environment in which the individual grew up.

Two chemical elements found in enamel - oxygen and strontium - exist in different forms, or isotopes. The ratios of these isotopes found in enamel are particularly informative to archaeologists.

Most oxygen in teeth and bone comes from drinking water - which is itself derived from rain or snow.

In warm climates, drinking water contains a higher ratio of heavy oxygen (O-18 ) to light oxygen (O-16) than in cold climates. So comparing the oxygen isotope ratio in teeth with that of drinking water from different regions can provide information about the climate in which a person was raised.

Most rocks carry a small amount of the element strontium (Sr), and the ratio of strontium 87 and strontium 86 isotopes varies according to local geology.

The isotope ratio of strontium in a person's teeth can provide information on the geological setting where that individual lived in childhood.

By combining the techniques, archaeologists can gather data pointing to regions where a person may have been raised.

Tests carried out several years ago on another burial known as the "Amesbury Archer" show that he was raised in a colder climate than that found in Britain.

Analysis of the strontium and oxygen isotopes in his teeth showed that his most likely childhood origin was in the Alpine foothills of Germany.

"Isotope analysis of tooth enamel from both these people shows that the two individuals provide a contrast in origin, which highlights the diversity of people who came to Stonehenge from across Europe," said Professor Evans.

The Amesbury Archer was discovered around 5km from Stonehenge. His is a rich Copper Age or early Bronze Age burial, and contains some of the earliest gold and copper objects found in Britain. He lived about 4,300 years ago, some 800 years earlier than the Boscombe Down boy.

The archer arrived at a time when metallurgy was becoming established in Britain; he was a metal worker, which meant he possessed rare skills.

"We see the beginning of the Bronze Age as a period of great mobility across Europe. People, ideas, objects are all moving very fast for a century or two," said Dr Fitzpatrick.

"At the time when the boy with the amber necklace was buried, there are really no new technologies coming in [to Britain]... We need to turn to look at why groups of people - because this is a youngster - are making long journeys."

He speculated: "They may be travelling within family groups... They may be coming to visit Stonehenge because it was an incredibly famous and important place, as it is today. But we don't know the answer."

Other people who visited Stonehenge from afar were the Boscombe Bowmen, individuals from a collective Bronze Age grave. Isotope analysis suggests these people could have come from Wales or Brittany, if not further afield.

The research is being prepared for publication in a collection of research papers on Stonehenge.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11421593
 
Wow - even more evidence of how well traveled people back then really were.
 
Stonehenge Built With Balls?
New experiment suggests monumental stones could have rolled on rails.


It's one of Stonehenge's greatest mysteries: How did Stone Age Britons move 45-ton slabs across dozens of miles to create the 4,500-year-old stone circle?

Now a new theory says that, while the ancient builders didn't have wheels, they may well have had balls. (See Stonehenge pictures.)

A previous theory suggested that the builders used wooden rollers—carved tree trunks laid side by side on a constructed hard surface. Another imagined huge wooden sleds atop greased wooden rails.

But critics say the rollers' hard pathway would have left telltale gouges in the landscape, which have never been found. And the sled system, while plausible, would have required huge amounts of manpower—hundreds of men at a time to move one of the largest Stonehenge stones, according to a 1997 study.

Andrew Young, though, says Stonehenge's slabs, may have been rolled over a series of balls lined up in grooved rails, according to a November 30 statement from Exeter University in the U.K., where Young is a doctoral student in biosciences.

Young first came up with the ball bearings idea when he noticed that carved stone balls were often found near Neolithic stone circles in Aberdeenshire, Scotland (map).

"I measured and weighed a number of these stone balls and realized that they are all precisely the same size—around 70 millimeters [3 inches] in diameter—which made me think they must have been made to be used in unison, rather than alone," he told National Geographic News.

The balls, Young admitted, have been found near stone circles only in Aberdeenshire and the Orkney Islands (map)—not on Stonehenge's Salisbury Plain.

But, he speculated, at southern sites, including Stonehenge (map), builders may have preferred wooden balls, which would have rotted away long ago. For one thing, wooden balls are much faster to carve. For another, they're much lighter to transport.

To test his theory, Young first made a small-scale model of the ball-and-rail setup.

"I discovered I could push over a hundred kilograms [220 pounds] of concrete using just one finger," he said.

With the help of his supervisor, Bruce Bradley, and partial funding from the PBS series Nova, Young recently scaled up his experiment to see if the ball-and-track system could be used to move a Stonehenge-weight stone.

Sure enough, they found that, with just seven people pushing, they could easily move a four-ton load—about as heavy as Stonehenge's smaller stones.

Using the ball system, Young said, "I estimate it would be possible to cover 20 miles [32 kilometers] in a day" by leapfrogging track segments.

But the inner circle's "sarsen" stones weigh not 4 tons but up to about 45 tons. Young suspects a Stone Age system could have handled much heavier loads than his experimental one.

For one thing, he thinks oxen, not people, provided the pulling power—an idea supported by the remains of burned ox bones found in ditches around many stone circles.

For another, Britain's old-growth forests hadn't yet been razed 4,500 years ago, so the builders would have had easy access to cured oak. This tough wood—which was beyond the modern project's budget—would have resulted in a stronger, more resilient system than the soft, "greenwood" system the researchers built.

More and pics at: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ce-rolled/
 
What were the rails made from?
I'm not sure that wooden rails would have been able to support the sarsen stones without a certain amount of cracking and splitting taking place.

That said, this ball idea is certainly a good theory.
 
But wouldn't balls have left deeper trackways because the weight isn't distributed as widely as on a set of logs?
 
Interesting how this thread started out with Stonehenge as female sexual organs and ended up with balls. :)
 
A new henge discovered at Stonehenge

(PhysOrg.com) -- An archaeology team led by the University of Birmingham and the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Archaeological Prospection and Virtual Archaeology in Austria discovered a major ceremonial monument less than one kilometre away from the iconic Stonehenge.

History is set to be rewritten after an archaeology team led by the University of Birmingham and the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Archaeological Prospection and Virtual Archaeology in Austria discovered a major ceremonial monument less than one kilometer away from the iconic Stonehenge.
The incredible find has been hailed by Professor Vince Gaffney, from the University’s IBM Visual and Spatial Technology Centre, as one of the most significant yet for those researching the UK’s most important prehistoric structure.
Professor Gaffney says: “This finding is remarkable. It will completely change the way we think about the landscape around Stonehenge. “People have tended to think that as Stonehenge reached its peak it was the paramount monument, existing in splendid isolation. This discovery is completely new and extremely important in how we understand Stonehenge and its landscape.”
The new “henge-like” Late Neolithic monument is believed to be contemporaneous to Stonehenge and appears to be on the same orientation as the World Heritage Site monument. It comprises a segmented ditch with opposed north-east/south-west entrances that are associated with internal pits that are up to one metre in diameter and could have held a free-standing, timber structure.
The project, which is supported by the landowner, the National Trust, and facilitated by English Heritage, has brought together the most sophisticated geophysics team ever to be engaged in a single archaeological project in Britain.
Provided by University of Birmingham

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-hen ... henge.html
 
Is it an actual henge, though?

Viewers of QI will be aware that Stonehenge, isn't a henge.

Even though the word "henge" appears to be a back formation from "Stonehenge".

Those wacky archaeologists.
 
Ok, what is the actual definition of a "henge" then?
 
You will note that the bank is outside the ditch in a henge; this is the opposite way round to how it is at Stonehenge. A henge is also the opposite way round to a defensive structure such as a moated castle or manor; in those the bank or wall is inside the moat, to keep danger out.

It seems obvious that a henge was designed to keep something dangerous inside from getting out...
 
Back
Top