Stonehenge

Ghost In The Machine

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
1,737
Reaction score
5,295
Points
214
Location
Yorkshire
Some of yous may have heard of the tarot artist Poppy Palin. Years ago, on her old website I think it was, there was a fascinating written account of an experience she had at Stonehenge years ago - she didn't set out to visit but drove past it one evening, and stopped. And something happened. I could no longer find this when I wanted to, but she has now made a 2 part YouTube video describing it.

It's fascinating. Not sure what I think. But find this strangely compelling.

 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
46,604
Reaction score
41,447
Points
334
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
Some of yous may have heard of the tarot artist Poppy Palin. Years ago, on her old website I think it was, there was a fascinating written account of an experience she had at Stonehenge years ago - she didn't set out to visit but drove past it one evening, and stopped. And something happened. I could no longer find this when I wanted to, but she has now made a 2 part YouTube video describing it.

It's fascinating. Not sure what I think. But find this strangely compelling.

The black figure they saw approaching may have simply been the night security guard *. I have no explanation for the other stuff they witnessed.

* Years ago, someone I knew was driving past Stonehenge as the sun was going down and he just decided to stop and look across at the stones, watching the last rays of the sun. He encountered the security guard and was able to persuade him to let him in before it got dark. The guard let him take a few pictures too. I don't think they'd allow that now.
 

pandacracker

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
1,345
Reaction score
3,259
Points
189
The black figure they saw approaching may have simply been the night security guard

I thought that. And the rustling of leaves could be the sound of his waterproof jacket or over-trousers.

Not sure about the leaning on the heelstone though.

I found Poppy's delivery of the story a bit irritating, I'm afraid.
 

Ghost In The Machine

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
1,737
Reaction score
5,295
Points
214
Location
Yorkshire
I thought that. And the rustling of leaves could be the sound of his waterproof jacket or over-trousers.

Not sure about the leaning on the heelstone though.

I found Poppy's delivery of the story a bit irritating, I'm afraid.
Yes, I first read it as a written down account which stuck in my mind.
 

pandacracker

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
1,345
Reaction score
3,259
Points
189
I've been reminded of someone telling me about seeing balls of light moving with intent over the fields near Silbury Hill (on which he was sitting at the time)

He said he usually didn't like talking about it because of peoples immediate disbelief.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,753
Reaction score
37,798
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
The latest spin seems to be that Stonehenge may have originally stood in Wales. It wasn't just the stones that were moved (as building material) - it was the entire monument.
Stonehenge: Did the stone circle originally stand in Wales?

One of Britain's biggest and oldest stone circles has been found in Wales - and could be the original building blocks of Stonehenge.

Archaeologists uncovered the remains of the Waun Mawn site in Pembrokeshire's Preseli Hills.

They believe the stones could have been dismantled and rebuilt 150 miles (240 km) away on Salisbury Plain, Wiltshire.

The discovery was made during filming for BBC Two's Stonehenge: The Lost Circle Revealed.

The Welsh circle, believed to be the third biggest in Britain, has a diameter of 360ft (110m), the same as the ditch that encloses Stonehenge, and both are aligned on the midsummer solstice sunrise.

Several of the monoliths at the World Heritage Site are of the same rock type as those that still remain at the Welsh site.

And one of the bluestones at Stonehenge has an unusual cross-section which matches one of the holes left at Waun Mawn, suggesting the monolith began its life as part of the stone circle in the Preseli Hills before being moved. ...

FULL STORY: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-56029203
 

Mikefule

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
860
Reaction score
3,112
Points
154
Location
Lincolnshire UK
The latest spin seems to be that Stonehenge may have originally stood in Wales. It wasn't just the stones that were moved (as building material) - it was the entire monument.

A daring heist by a Neolithic master criminal and his hengemen?

Behind the dramatic headlines, it looks like a small number of the stones may have been taken from another stone circle, and that there is a possibility that some others may have been taken from other stone circles. This was not a case of the entire Stonehenge as we know it being moved and rebuilt block by block.

The Professor suggests maybe a population moved taking their stones with them as their "ancestral identities". Another simpler possibility is that it was just a case of recycling. Perhaps it is easier to relocate an existing shaped block of stone than to quarry and shape one then have to relocate it anyway.

On the other hand, perhaps this was an early and successful version of the "selling Brooklyn Bridge" scam...
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
24,753
Reaction score
37,798
Points
314
Location
Out of Bounds
... The Professor suggests maybe a population moved taking their stones with them as their "ancestral identities". Another simpler possibility is that it was just a case of recycling. Perhaps it is easier to relocate an existing shaped block of stone than to quarry and shape one then have to relocate it anyway. ...

... Or perhaps contributing a significant chunk of a group's extant ritual site was the price of admission and proof of commitment to an newly expanded and / or integrated network or confederation of previously segregated clans / tribes / subcultures / whatever.
 

bugmum

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
885
Reaction score
2,977
Points
169
... Or perhaps contributing a significant chunk of a group's extant ritual site was the price of admission and proof of commitment to an newly expanded and / or integrated network or confederation of previously segregated clans / tribes / subcultures / whatever.

Robert Graves conjectured that it was to do with breaking the power of the deity in those parts, by stealing her stuff and erecting it for the glory of some other deity.
 

Nosmo King

I'm not a cat
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
7,293
Reaction score
13,804
Points
283
Anyone see that documentary on bbc tonight about the 'so called' origin of stonehenge in Wales?
 

GNC

King-Sized Canary
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
33,092
Reaction score
21,535
Points
334
Just been watching it, it's been all over the news as mentioned above. Engrossing stuff, obviously it's going to throw up more questions, but the evidence they offered that Stonehenge was Welsh (or more accurately part Welsh) was very convincing. Though it would be the equivalent of moving house and dismantling your home to take with you. Guess they were pretty attached to the place. That it was a work in progress for so many years is very curious.
 

Nosmo King

I'm not a cat
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
7,293
Reaction score
13,804
Points
283
:p
Just been watching it, it's been all over the news as mentioned above. Engrossing stuff, obviously it's going to throw up more questions, but the evidence they offered that Stonehenge was Welsh (or more accurately part Welsh) was very convincing. Though it would be the equivalent of moving house and dismantling your home to take with you. Guess they were pretty attached to the place. That it was a work in progress for so many years is very curious.
In my opinion it was horse shit lol, firstly, the guy finds a hole in Wales, he reckons was once home to a stone that is now part of stonehenge, tjis is based on the size and shape of the hole, there are many other holes of many shapes and sizes that nobody mentions in any detail, he just focuses on this one hole, because one of the stones in stonehenge has similar dimensions to the hole in Wales, ok, so when you take a stone out of the ground you need to expand the hole to get the stone out, so the shape and size of the hole does not represent the shape and size of the stone, putting that aside, if we accept this as fact, then surely all the other holes excavated would also match with all tje other stones at stonehenge, but no, only this one, so on this section, we have a hole in Wales that has a similat shape to one of the stones in stonehenge. We then move on to bones excavated near stonehenge, reportedly the earliest contemporary to the henge, when they are sent for strontium testing, the bone doesnt originate from the area an area high in chalk) but somewhere else, a map is then shown of areas where the bones could have originated, the map shows areas highlighted where the strontium levels match the bones, including a few scattered patches in Wales (150 odd miles away) which the tean instantly focus on, what they dont mention is the massive area in north devon (right next to somerset), to me the entirity of this program was a theory with suprious 'evidence' crowbarred into fit the narrative, the rest of the show was just fluff and filler. But thats just my opinion
 

Analogue Boy

Bar 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
12,329
Reaction score
13,766
Points
314
The greatest mystery for me was how did they remove that huge stone without altering the shape of the hole in any way?
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
46,604
Reaction score
41,447
Points
334
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
The greatest mystery for me was how did they remove that huge stone without altering the shape of the hole in any way?
Good point, yes. I'd say it'd be more difficult to remove a stone than to put it in.
 

Nosmo King

I'm not a cat
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
7,293
Reaction score
13,804
Points
283
Good point, yes. I'd say it'd be more difficult to remove a stone than to put it in.
It would be more than difficult, to remove the stone whilt leaving a hole the exact shape of the stone, relatively easy to remove the stone from the hole by digging one side out and toppling it id say, but ive had my two penneth worth on this lol.
 

catseye

Old lady trouser-smell
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
3,716
Reaction score
12,893
Points
224
Location
York
I'm a big fan of Parker Pearson, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt - he's not going to stake his entire reputation (which is huge) on some made up stuff.

Maybe (I admit I haven't watched the programme yet), they can work out the 'profile' of an original stone fitting hole despite further damage to it from stone removal (ie, the undisturbed very base of the hole may be a particular shape and size. As with removing a tooth, most of the damage and destruction is going to be done around the surface - if you widen the hole to get the stone out you don't necessarily have to dig all the way to the base.
 

Nosmo King

I'm not a cat
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
7,293
Reaction score
13,804
Points
283
I'm a big fan of Parker Pearson, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt - he's not going to stake his entire reputation (which is huge) on some made up stuff.

Maybe (I admit I haven't watched the programme yet), they can work out the 'profile' of an original stone fitting hole despite further damage to it from stone removal (ie, the undisturbed very base of the hole may be a particular shape and size. As with removing a tooth, most of the damage and destruction is going to be done around the surface - if you widen the hole to get the stone out you don't necessarily have to dig all the way to the base.
But still to say that stonehenge was 'trasported' completely from Wales to Salisbury plain on the strength that one stone roughly matches the shape of a hole found in Wales is a bit of a stretch, if he could match the profile of every stone at stonehenge to a corrisponding hole in Wales then that would be evidence, but to match just on stone is more like a coincidence in my opinion.
 

catseye

Old lady trouser-smell
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
3,716
Reaction score
12,893
Points
224
Location
York
But still to say that stonehenge was 'trasported' completely from Wales to Salisbury plain on the strength that one stone roughly matches the shape of a hole found in Wales is a bit of a stretch, if he could match the profile of every stone at stonehenge to a corrisponding hole in Wales then that would be evidence, but to match just on stone is more like a coincidence in my opinion.
As I said, I haven't seen the programme yet, but it could be based on 'likelihood'. If they've gone to all the trouble to transport one stone, if all the stones are quarried from the same place, and there are other similarities between the sites, then it would be 'likely' that they would have transported more than one stone.
 

Nosmo King

I'm not a cat
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
7,293
Reaction score
13,804
Points
283
As I said, I haven't seen the programme yet, but it could be based on 'likelihood'. If they've gone to all the trouble to transport one stone, if all the stones are quarried from the same place, and there are other similarities between the sites, then it would be 'likely' that they would have transported more than one stone.
Hmm i dont like it when 'experts' use words like 'likely' and 'in all likelihood' it smacks of assumption, like i said, if all tje stone holes could be linked to stones at stonehenge then i would happily doff my cap and say 'wow thats amazing' but that is not the case in this instance, as you say you havent seen the programme so ill leave it up to you to make your own conclusions once you have seen it (if you do watch it, that is). As i said this is just my opinion. :p
 

Mikefule

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
860
Reaction score
3,112
Points
154
Location
Lincolnshire UK
But still to say that Stonehenge was 'transported' completely from Wales to Salisbury plain on the strength that one stone roughly matches the shape of a hole found in Wales is a bit of a stretch...

But that isn't what is being said. For a start, it only refers to the bluestones, and not the iconic sarsen stones.

It is well established that the monument at Stonehenge was built in phases over a period of around 1,500 years.

This article suggests there is evidence that the bluestones were taken from another circle. Some stones remain at the supposed "donor circle" so that means that even that phase of building Stonehenge was not a case of moving and faithfully recreating an earlier structure.

Whether it was done for "beneficial" ritual or religious purposes, or as a way of humiliating a defeated enemy, or was simply recycling of shaped blocks of stone, there is no suggestion that anyone dismantled a circle, moved it and rebuilt it in its original form.

Years ago, I used to stay regularly at a farmhouse B&B (Headland Warren) on Dartmoor, near to Grimspound. Dartmoor has hut circles, stone rows, and other ancient remains scattered all over it. Headland Warren has at least one large stone in its construction that was "salvaged and repurposed" from a bronze age structure.
 

Analogue Boy

Bar 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
12,329
Reaction score
13,766
Points
314
As I said, I haven't seen the programme yet, but it could be based on 'likelihood'. If they've gone to all the trouble to transport one stone, if all the stones are quarried from the same place, and there are other similarities between the sites, then it would be 'likely' that they would have transported more than one stone.
You should watch the programme to get context.
 

Analogue Boy

Bar 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
12,329
Reaction score
13,766
Points
314
The greatest mystery for me was how did they remove that huge stone without altering the shape of the hole in any way?
Anyone who has had to remove a simple fence post knows you don’t simply pluck it out without disturbing the soil around it. Yet we’re supposed to accept this as cast iron evidence.
 

GNC

King-Sized Canary
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
33,092
Reaction score
21,535
Points
334
I think it was more the Stonehenge bluestones being an exact match for the stones around the Welsh site, and there were also bluestones left there that had been quarried but never used but were almost identical, that was better proof than their computer simulation of one hole. Don't get hung up on the hole.
 

Analogue Boy

Bar 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
12,329
Reaction score
13,766
Points
314
I think it was more the Stonehenge bluestones being an exact match for the stones around the Welsh site, and there were also bluestones left there that had been quarried but never used but were almost identical, that was better proof than their computer simulation of one hole. Don't get hung up on the hole.
The hole was ‘The key in the lock’ of proof as described. And it was also a last (pretty desperate) roll of the dice in the investigation. I know lost things are always in the last place you look but I felt the stretch of credibility even from here.
 

Nosmo King

I'm not a cat
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
7,293
Reaction score
13,804
Points
283
But that isn't what is being said. For a start, it only refers to the bluestones, and not the iconic sarsen stones.

It is well established that the monument at Stonehenge was built in phases over a period of around 1,500 years.

This article suggests there is evidence that the bluestones were taken from another circle. Some stones remain at the supposed "donor circle" so that means that even that phase of building Stonehenge was not a case of moving and faithfully recreating an earlier structure.

Whether it was done for "beneficial" ritual or religious purposes, or as a way of humiliating a defeated enemy, or was simply recycling of shaped blocks of stone, there is no suggestion that anyone dismantled a circle, moved it and rebuilt it in its original form.

Years ago, I used to stay regularly at a farmhouse B&B (Headland Warren) on Dartmoor, near to Grimspound. Dartmoor has hut circles, stone rows, and other ancient remains scattered all over it. Headland Warren has at least one large stone in its construction that was "salvaged and repurposed" from a bronze age structure.
I watched the programme, my issue is that his theory that stonehenge was built, in part, from blue stones transported/looted/stolen or whatever from Waun Mawn, is built on very shaky, tenuous foundations, based on a filled in hole which bares a resemblance in shape to a blue stone located at stonehenge, only one of the holes excavated at Waun Mawn, bore any resemblence in shape to any blue stone at stonehenge, this smacks more of coincidence than evidence, plus as i stated earlier, it would have been impossible to remove an imbedded stone from a hole and leave only the exact shape of the stone that was removed from it. If the stones were looted/stolen they would have been torn down, uprooting the surrounding ground and if they were removed with care, one side of the hole would have been excavated in order to lay the stone down gently, whichever way the hole would not retain the shape of the imbedded stone.
 

Nosmo King

I'm not a cat
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
7,293
Reaction score
13,804
Points
283
I think it was more the Stonehenge bluestones being an exact match for the stones around the Welsh site, and there were also bluestones left there that had been quarried but never used but were almost identical, that was better proof than their computer simulation of one hole. Don't get hung up on the hole.
I do not have an issue with the fact that the blue stones of stonehenge wete quarried in Wales, this is not new, its been known for decades, that is not what tjis programme was intimating.
 
Top