Stonehenge As a Royal Family's Burial Site 124
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."
Why Stonehenge? (Score:5, Insightful)
human nature's not so different... (Score:4, Insightful)
Visiting some dolmens in France a few years ago the archaeologist explained that it was believed these were religious sites, since visitors had to bow low to enter a womb-like chamber. Sure... or... how about the small entrance is easier to heat, easy to keep dry, easier to defend, and easier to keep out animals like rats etc away from food stores. For all we know the dolmen was the first equivalent of Walmart.
Homo Sapiens is, for the most part, a selfish, greedy species. To ascribe our ancestors with cuddly, noble airs of spirituality, science and mysticism is the stuff of fairy tales, not science. Take a look at your neighborhood; minus the styles, the cars, and the pointless obsession with worthless things like social networking sites, the species is today just and evolved and spiritual as it has ever been. If anything, we've progressed (slightly) in terms of abolishing slavery, women's right etc.
Seriously, the first Walmart is more likely than some solar temple. I'll buy a royal burial site admittedly, that's just naked greed. That's pretty much what we humans are good at, especially the ones at the top of the social order.
Yes, that's this year's theory (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:human nature's not so different... (Score:4, Insightful)
Religion, IMO, was invented for just this reason: To make people do stuff you, as a leader, know is important for the well being of your tribe, but you can't really explain to your people because they either don't understand it, or they'd outright oppose it because for them, as an individual, it may have negative effects. Let's face it, we're selfish. Everyone wants everything for himself and doing things for the "common good" is something reserved for when you're doing REALLY well and have no real problems anymore, so you do some feelgood stuff. And in ancient times, you rarely if ever were doing so well that you have no problems anymore.
But as a ruler, it can be quite useful to know the right times for sowing and reaping. Too early and your grain is dying in the last freeze. Too late and it won't grow long enough. So you have to put aside a few people who watch the skies and do astronomy. That creates two problems for your tribe. First of all, the question why should I work so this moocher gets fat and lazy watching the skies, and second, why should I build him his astronomy tools (which often included a lot of stone lugging back then) on top of it? Sure, we'll know the best time for sowing in the future but guess what, I'm 20, I almost certainly won't live to be 30, I have no benefit at all from it!
This is where religion and all those "religious" buildings came in. It also served as a quite good tool to keep your people in line, too. Especially if you can predict (and claim to command) such impressive events like an eclipse.
I'm fairly sure this is the reason why astronomy is one of the oldest sciences mankind invented. It was practical for an early tribe to predict the seasons. It's not that they were so fond of the stars, it was a matter of survival.
Re:NO. it didnt. (Score:3, Insightful)
PR isn't an invention of today's marketing goons. It's been here long before the advent of the ability to write, but that only made it worse. It is incredible how many documents of Charles the Great exist, the overwhelming majority of which are forgeries. Kings and rulers have been forging and lying to legitimate their claim to power for as long as we have written proof, and it is doubtful that this tradition started only when we learned to write. Without written documents, it's actually easier. Kill everyone who knows otherwise and your word is the only truth.
Re:Why Stonehenge? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Poor, as per usual (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you're nit-picking way too much. "Country" in this case refers to the actual current borders of the UK, and this may be the burial ground within those borders of earliest origin yet discovered. In this case "first" means "earliest discovered", which is after all the best gauge we have for these things. How could we ever determine for sure which was the first, as the first may have been lost forever? As for "royal dynasty", though it may not have been made for a king or queen as we think of them today, in describing the hypothesis that the burial ground may have been for especially important persons isn't unreasonable.
I just think that for the purposes of communication with modern people it's okay to use modern terms, even if you're talking about something ancient for which there may not be an exact analogue today.
In any case the things you're complaining about are not one of those cases where someone's blatantly distorted the facts to hype up a story for the general public (see also: any popular media article having anything whatsoever to do with any physics developments past elementary mechanics).
Re:Poor, as per usual (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet, that hasn't stopped you from making bold and unsubstantiated claims about these very societies.
Become the change you wish to see.
Re:Why Stonehenge? (Score:5, Insightful)
In a word, trilithons [wikipedia.org]. Stone circles are impressive, but raising large lintel stones and fitting them with mortise and tenon joints to the even larger sarsen stones is very impressive.
Spinal Tap references aside, there's something about the trilithons that is deeply iconic: a mastery of stone, and thus nature. The later use of arches, vaulted ceilings and domes in religious buildings is no accident; people may not "get" religion, but suspend several tonnes of stone over their heads and they can't help but be impressed.