Stonehenge As a Royal Family's Burial Site

mikesd81 sends in a report from Newsday about radiocarbon dating of cremated bones excavated from Britain's Stonehenge that, an archeologist said, has solved part of the ancient mystery surrounding the 5,000-year-old site: It was a burial ground for what may have been the country's first royal dynasty. No word on how this work relates to the "Neolithic Lourdes" theory we discussed earlier. "The new dates indicate burials began at least 500 years before the first massive stones were erected at the site and continued after it was completed... The pattern and relatively small number of the graves suggest all were members of a single family. The findings provide the first substantive evidence that a line of kings ruled at least a portion of southern England during this early period. They exerted enough power to mobilize manpower necessary to move the massive stones from as far as 150 miles away and [maintained] that power for at least five centuries, said archaeologist Mike Parker Pearson of the University of Sheffield, leader of current excavations at the site... His findings will also appear in the June issue of National Geographic and in the television special "Stonehenge Decoded," to be shown Sunday."

Re:Oh, that one!

[AnotherUsername]

Henge [wikipedia.org]

Stonehenge is type of henge. There are many, many henges, and not all of them are in Britain. There are even henges in America, one of the more famous ones being at Cahokia Mounds [wikipedia.org] and is called 'Woodhenge'.

So, to answer your question, yes, there is more than one.

Re:Why Stonehenge?

[Richard_at_work]

You went to both as a child? Go back as an adult and I guarantee you will change your mind. Stonehenge looks like it does because it has been rebuilt several times in the past 100 years - whether they actually are representative of how they stood thousands of years go is still subject to discussion.

The best thing about Avebury is that its not a stage managed tourist trap - you simply park your car and go wandering, you can even touch the stones if you wish and theres no entrance fee. The sheer size of the monument is fantastic.

Poor, as per usual

[MLCT]

It was a burial ground for what may have been the country's first royal dynasty

"country" - didn't exist 5,000 years ago, patchy local tribes, communities and chiefdoms were all that exsisted, often as small as a couple hundred people.

"first" - nope - there were thousands of years of these patchy clans and communities going back far before 5,000 BP - the Stonehenge neolithic communities and any political, cultural or religious "leaders" there weren't the "first" anything.

"royal dynasty" - Firstly it wasn't royal - that is a modern definition, and can only be used when it means what it says, I see the FA uses it as well, and it should be rightly criticised for inaccurate reporting. We know little concrete about how stone age societies functioned - far too little to use the word "royal". Secondly there is no evidence that it is a "dynasty" of anything.

Historical accuracy seems to becoming abandoned these days. The media seem to becoming more and more able to get away with just making up anything they want to fit the "angle", particularly with scientific pieces.

Re:Why Stonehenge?

[Gordonjcp]

If you want the really good stuff, you need to go to Orkney.

Re:NO. it didnt.

[value_added]

Reattributing something you conquer or inherit as your own creation has been a quite common tool in ancient times for kings to justify their claim of the throne. Ramses II was notorious for it.

A tool for kings? Perhaps, but my dog does the same with every tree he passes. Lacks the requisite pomp, of course, but no less effective.

Re:Nothing to do with the current royal family

[mabinogi]

The current British Royal Family are descendants from a French Invasion of England made in 1066 AD

No they're not.
They're Germans, from the house Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (the English branch of which being renamed to Windsor when having German sounding names didn't make you popular), and before that, house Hanover (since the early 18th century).
And even before that it was far more complicated than simply being descendants of William I

Re:Why Stonehenge?

[fyoder]

The best thing about Avebury is that its not a stage managed tourist trap - you simply park your car and go wandering, you can even touch the stones if you wish and theres no entrance fee.

Also check out the Callanish Standing Stones [wikipedia.org] on the Isle of Lewis if you get the opportunity. Perhaps not quite as impressive as Stonehenge, no lintels, but if you go in the off tourist season, you may be able to have them all to yourself. To be alone with something like that affords a deep feeling of connection with the ancient past.

Re:Why Stonehenge?

[Puggs]

people have been touching those stones for thousands of years, why should we stop now?

At the risk of sounding like a pretentious hippy, theres nothing I like doing better than hugging one of the stones when I'm at Avebury - you can see all the tiny little nooks and crannies, some of which have random crystals etc in.

Stonehenge *IS* a tourist trap, theres nothing there but the stones and a gift shop. Avebury on the other hand has a quaint little biker pub, the biggest henge in the world, which imho is more impressive than the stones at stonehenge.

Yes I've been to both repeatedly - the best time to go to stonehenge is overnight at one of the solstices, when you CAN get up to the stones - with all drums,chanting,bongos etc it feel like your thousands of years ago.

I was at avebury last weekend for my birthday - the kids love it, rolling down the henge, playing on the stones etc. Far more enjoyable than the "stand at a distance and look" experience at stonehenge.

The henge at stonehenge is just a dip in the ground - the henge at avebury is massive, and far more impressive than the remains of the stone cirles there.

Anyway, enough ranting :) - if you get the chance go back to both as an adult, take your family to Avebury on a sunny day, its a good (and cheap) afternoon out

Re:Why Stonehenge?

[wish bot]

The best thing about the Avebury circle is that there's a pub in the middle of it.

And no, I'm not joking.

I doubt it

[Moraelin]

Personally I doubt it, because coal wasn't even important in Britain (or almost anywhere else) before the 1600's-1700's or so.

Even in the iron age, the preferred fuel originally was charcoal. It's only when wood was more important for building whole ship armadas, that coal became the fuel of choice.

In the bronze age, you didn't even need coal at all, as tin and copper can be smelted with wood just as well. They have a lower melting point than iron. Copper: 1084.62 C, Tin: 231.93C, vs Iron: 1538 C. So with a good forge you just need wood to generate the temperatures needed for copper or bronze.

The first stage of Stonehenge dates from 3100 BC, although the stones you see now are from 2200 BC. In 3100 BC Britain wasn't just waay before Iron Age at that point, but was probably before Bronze Age too, if I remember the general timeline right. They were decidedly chalcolithic, i.e., a mixture of copper for weapons and some tools, and still a lot of stuff made of stone or bone.

I.e., the economic demand for coal was somewhere between "not at all" and "buggerall". Assuming that anyone went feverishly poking holes all over the place to find coal, is just... the wrong age for that.

Additionally, Stonehenge 1 from 3100 BC already had a big ditch dug in the middle. So they'd already know if there was any ore or (still worthless) coal underneath. Assuming that they still went and poked the same place with square holes around it for another 1000 years, is kinda silly. There was no further point in probing the same damned place as opposed to going looking somewhere else.

And even if they just buried some poor workers in such holes, noone would drag holes from 300km away from Wales to use as headstones for poor miner families. The poor guys would just get a wooden marker for their grave, not hundreds of people dragging and lifting stones for their grave. Their families wouldn't have been able to pay those.