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:Why Stonehenge?

[kestasjk]

It doesn't look as impressive, and is almost completely ruined, whereas stonehenge has always survived to some degree.
I'm not sure why you consider Avebury more impressive. I've been to both as a child and I was more impressed by stonehenge.

That having been said there are more impressive burial sites, which are earth mounds which have caves that go underground, and are lit up by natural light only on certain days of the year.
They were certainly more impressive to visit, if not visually impressive.

Re:Why Stonehenge?

[wass]

Avebury's circle is larger in area, but Stonehenge has a much denser organization of sarsen stones, and just looks much more majestic IMHO. Additionally, Stonehenge has actual henge stones (ie, the top crosspieces), which originally circled the whole structure but only a few still remain intact.

Also, the Stonehenge sarsens were transported from their quarries several hundred miles away, which is pretty amazing and makes you seriously wonder what the hell was so special about this site to justify such a long haul.

But maybe I'm biased, as my wife and I just visited Stonehenge about two months ago on our honeymoon.

Re:Why Stonehenge?

[yakumo.unr]

The stones are considerably larger at Stonehenge, and the origin of how the stone itself was brought there was a puzzle in itself. Avebury is a very special and different place, and those that prefer it don't tend to want to shout about it too much it as they don't want to draw the attention to it, so it stays that way.

NO. it didnt.

[unity100]

this 'burial' theory just ignores the fact that rulers, ruling families, especially the first family of any new kingdom/dynasty etc, had the habit of claiming long standing monuments, legends, traditions as their own, and claiming they were the first, and even order distortion of existing records (if there is any) to that extent.

this can happen and take unbelievable forms even in civilizations that had long standing history, like egypt. it is too common for pharaohs to deface all mentions of previous pharaohs from even temple hieroglyphs, have scribes rewrite the records.

one of the most curious examples is the great pyramid. despite it is supposedly the 3rd true pyramid that is built, and it should have all kinds of glyphs, wall art, statues and carvings to nail the legacy of Khufu at every step inside the pyramid, there are NO mentions of khufu's name everywhere but on a small wall glyph (that contains only his name) over where his casket is placed. the king chamber is also curious, it has no kind of wall art, carvings or anything of the sort. this creates a contrast to long standing egypt tradition (even at that date) of adorning every bit of the burial site with all kinds of art and wall carvings and glyphs.

no sir. experience of mankind through history states that this new find didnt solve any mystery in regard to past of stonehenge.

Re:Poor, as per usual

[Opportunist]

Worse yet, who says that it was built for this? It's not unheard of that "holy sites" have been recycled over and over in history. Many cathedrals are built on ancient sites of worship.

Take the Nebra sky disk [wikipedia.org]. It is almost certain that it changed its use and purpose over time, as can be seen by the changes it underwent during its use. It's even possible that the last "user" of the disk had no idea of its astronomic significance and it became some sort of idol for ancient worship.

Dynasties and rulers come and go, land and property changes hands in times of war. And rarely does the defeated tell his nemesis his holy secrets. Why shouldn't some victorious tribe conquer the area of Stonehenge and, in ignorance of its actual reason, attribute it to some divine or otherworldly creation? After all, chauvinism isn't something we invented in our time, would a victorious warlord attribute the creation of something as impressive as Stonehenge to a tribe he just conquered? He'd have to admit that the people he defeated created something he does not understand.

And what better place for a royal burial site than a place where the gods themselves built something?

So just simply saying that some place is "merely" the tomb of a king just because someone was buried there is cheap. Especially if there are indicators that point towards scientific use.

But there our chauvinism sets in again. How could some barbaric culture that can, at best, use stone axes be scientifically "advanced", to a point we "civilized" people didn't achive until medieval times?

Re:Why Stonehenge?

[tsm_sf]

Visiting Stonehenge is like visiting a museum. There are certain areas you can and cannot go, times you cannot be there, and the path ends in a gift shop.

Avebury is an actual village surrounded by megaliths. More standing stones line a very nice walk/hike to the area, and there are burial mounds all over the place (some have been hedgehogged and look really cool). There are (incredibly kitschy) stores in town selling info of various kinds, and a visitors center set up to demonstrate what life was like back in The Day(tm).

In comparison the whole Stonehenge experience feels tightly controlled and 'artificial'. I can't really justify that word but you may understand what I'm getting at.

Re:Why Stonehenge?

[TapeCutter]

I went to Orkney about two years ago and there are standing stones all over the place. I was a bit dissapointed by Skara-Brae (WTF is the deal with the tinnted glass over the top). However after visiting Orkney the guy who owned the B&B we were staying at near Joh-o-Groats told us about an old archeological dig on some mounds near the cliff that the B&B was overlooking. So when we were leaving we thought we would have a look, sure enough there was a maze of ruined huts just like the ones at Skara-Brae, only there were lots more rooms and passages. The whole site was overgrown by weeds but you could walk over them and reveal the flintstonesque shelves and the 'bait boxes' in the floors. We spent the whole morning doing the "Indiana jones" thing and didn't see another soul.

We travelled all over the UK for about 5 weeks, Orkney, Stonehenge and a stone circle somewhere high up in the Yorkshire dales were the most awe inspiring, but the little huts on the cliff overgrown and forgotten for 5000yrs were my favotite.