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."
south yorkshire (Score:1)
Alright!! An article about... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why Stonehenge? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why Stonehenge? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
It's just stonehenge and a barrier to try and stop people ruining it by touching the stones, how is that stage managed?
You're free to your own opinion, just don't act like it's anything other than opinion. (Same goes for your obnoxious sig)
Re:Why Stonehenge? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
I don't want to ever go back because I'm afraid there will be a Hard Rock cafe and a bunch of other touristy bunk.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Stonehenge has been excavated, in different areas and to different depths, several times in the last century, and yes, there was some re-erecting of stones in several of these excavation phases. However, the natu
Re: (Score:1)
Oh - and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 i
Re:Why Stonehenge? (Score:5, Informative)
And no, I'm not joking.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Why Stonehenge? (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why Stonehenge? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
There are lots of other great things on Orkney, too. Maes Howe was interesting. I got an individual guided tour as nobody else was around that day. Seeing millenia old Viking graffiti was fascinating.
The only down-side is that it's quite a long way away from anything, but anybody spending time in the north of Scotland should make the effort.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, that one! (Score:1)
I was amused (disappointed?) to see that Stonehenge had to be described as "Britain's Stonehenge". Does Johnny Foreigner have another one we don't know about?
Re:Oh, that one! (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
sure sure (Score:3, Funny)
Sure sure.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Personally though, I find the Nazca lines far more fascinating. The reason behind those drawings are still la
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Garry Denke (Score:1)
I doubt it (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Camp Fuel: Dates through Ice Ages
---> NW to SE --->
Pembrokeshire Coalfield -> South Wales Coalfield -> Bristol Coalfield -> Salisbury Plain
http://www.durhamrecordsonline.com/literature/coalfields-british.gif [durhamrecordsonline.com]
Coalfield -> 40 miles -> Coalfield -> 40 miles -> Coalfield -> 40 miles -> Prospect Area
http://www.geology.19thcenturyscience.org/books/1878-Ramsay-Geology/text-ocr/text/figs-100-jpg/GeoMap-400.jpg [19thcenturyscience.org]
800,000 BC Coalfield -> 800,000 BC Coalf
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
7 Questions:
Dr. Garry Denke - John Aubrey - Lt.-Col. William Hawley - Robert Newall - Question No. 1
Why did the Ancient dig and fill '56 cave chimney vent holes with Carboniferous Limestone?
Dr. Garry Denke - John Aubrey - Lt.-Col. William Hawley - Robert Newall - Question No. 2
Why did the Ancient then remove '56 cave chimney vent holes' Carboniferous Limestone?
Dr. Garry Denke - John Aubrey - Lt.-Col. William Hawley - Robert Newall - Questio
Re: (Score:2)
Where is your evidence for this claim? Few if any known inhabited caves from Europe had vent holes of any sort, hence the fact that most fire pits are found near the entrances.
"Why did the Ancient then remove '56 cave chimney vent holes' Carboniferous Limestone?"
See above.
"Why did the Ancient burn anthracite Coal in the bottom of all '56 cave chimney vent holes?"
See above.
Question 4 is a repeat of question 3.
"Why did
Re: (Score:1)
One month it's Death.
One month it's Coal.
Anthracite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthracite [wikipedia.org]
blue stone
blue flame
blue coal
a) You're clueless.
Stone Tools Reveal Humans Lived in Britain 700000 Years Ago
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1216_051216_humans_britain.html [nationalgeographic.com]
b) They're not.
1. secnereffid suorefinobrac / suoecaterc hcaet
2. secnereffid suorefinobrac / suoecaterc thguat
3. nrub 'emalf enots eulb' a rof laoc eticarhtna
4. tnetnoc ruflus dna surohpsohp rof suonimutib
5. syenm
Re: (Score:2)
What a bunch of addled tripe.
"Wikipedia article on anthracite"
What was this intended to prove? That anthracite exists? Well blow me down, I didn't know that before you told me.
"a) You're clueless.
Stone Tools Reveal Humans Lived in Britain 700000 Years Ago
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1216_051216_humans_britain.html [nationalgeographic.com] [nationalgeographic.com]"
That's _one guy's theory_ which is well known in anthropological circles, and has been soundly rejected because his dating methods are (to be k
Re: (Score:1)
800,000-year-old South Wales Coalfield mining artefacts have been dated.
1. Prove that 3100 BC Salisbury Plain was "heavily forested".
2. Prove that the Ancient did not cremate Dead by "coal use".
3. Prove that importing rocks 150 kilometres is not "ludicrous".
Thank you.
For those unfamiliar with the 7 basic mineral materials of Stonehenge;
here is a list of them mined in chronological order of their appearance.
Stonehenge Mined Mineral Mat
Re: (Score:2)
800,000-year-old South Wales Coalfield mining artefacts have been dated."
By whom?
"1. Prove that 3100 BC Salisbury Plain was "heavily forested"."
I didn't say Salisbury plain was heavily forested. The surrounding countryside however was heavily forested (and there are remnants of forests there today), so people on the plain didn't have to walk far to find trees, hence the large numbers of wooden structures that were there.
"2. Prove tha
Re: (Score:1)
1. So it wasn't heavily forested, figures.
2. So you're a religious fanatic, figures.
3. So you can't disprove those, figures.
Aubrey never saw the Holes
Regards,
Garry Denke
http://www.atheists.org/ [atheists.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Hey thanks everybody for your many proofs that;
Dr. Garry Denke (1622-1699)
rightly deserves sole credit for discovering:
The First Stone of Stonehenge
The Artefacts below Heel Stone
The First Purpose of Stonehenge
same being of course;
Carboniferous Limestone of Stonehenge
Ark of the Covenant below Heel Stone
Coal Mining Purpose of Stonehenge
See ya! And thanks again!
Garry Denke (1955-)
Re: (Score:2)
While you conveniently fail to address the rather obvious point there were enough trees within easy reach for them to build a large wood henge prior the stone one, construct at least 300 wooden houses around the henge, and a number of wooden platforms supported by massive tree trunks. Figures.
"2. So you can't disprove those, figures."
I can't disprove the idea that pixies moved the blue stones by magic, or that Santa transported them in his sleigh either, and neit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
University of Texas at Austin (UT) 800,000 years ago.
1. "While you conveniently fail to address the rather obvious point there were enough trees within easy reach for them to build a large wood henge prior the stone one, construct at least 300 wooden houses around the henge, and a number of wooden platforms supported by massive tree trunks."
With the little wood available already used up for housing,
no wonder they hunted coal. Thanks for pointing that out.
2.
Re: (Score:1)
Arizona State University (ASU) 1,000,000 years ago.
University of North Texas (UNT) 900,000 years ago.
0. "Answering yourself as an AC?"
What the fuck is that supposed to mean? How pathetic.
1. "While you conveniently fail to address the rather obvious point there were enough trees within easy reach for them to build a large wood henge prior the stone one, construct at least 300 wooden houses around the henge, and a number of wooden platforms supported by mas
Re: (Score:2)
Arizona State University (ASU) 1,000,000 years ago.
University of North Texas (UNT) 900,000 years ago."
I'm sure you can cite the papers published in peer reviewed scientific journals from the people who did the dating work. I have access to most of them, including comprehensive back numbers (especially the ones pertaining to archaeology, anthropology, and palaeontology), so it doesn't matter if they're not on the Internet, or are member-only sites. This w
Re: (Score:1)
COUNTY OF WILTSHIRE AND COUNTY OF HAMPSHIRE
FRONT PAGE LEGAL NOTICE
STONEHENGE HAS BEEN SOLD TO A TEXAS TYCOON
1ST APRIL 1985
In 1961 Howard Hughes, the California oilman, and Roland Totera, the Florida oilman, funded the purchase of Stonehenge for Garry Denke d/b/a A Texas Tycoon, a Texas Sole Proprietorship, recorded in the Deed Records of the County of Collin, the State of Texas. Howard Hughes, an Aviator, and Roland Totera, an Uncle, bought all rights, titles and interests in and to
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, after the Ancient coal prospect was excavated and found being a duster, Stonehenge uses blossomed into many. Very, very, very many. The Ancient of days beneath Helestone. Coal explorationist family resting place. International olympic sports athletes graves. So many uses in fact, that after the Ancient Ice Ages' survival fuel was not found there, that I make no attempt to list any of them; Save the Ancient favorite; "STONEHENGE: An Olympic Stadium". Why? Because as Jame
Re: (Score:1)
http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/news/headlines/display.var.2330325.0.its_a_saucer_speculation.php [thisiswiltshire.co.uk]
KEEP watching the skies - That's the message from a new Swindon UFO group.
The Swindon UFO Research Organisation is hoping to attract members from across the town and surrounding areas.
The newly-formed organisation will help and support witnesses of unexplained phenomena by upholding strict confidentially.
It will also dispel the myths and stigma associated with UFO sightings.
"There have
What does this have to do with cyber-technology? (Score:1)
Re:What does this have to do with cyber-technology (Score:2)
Poor, as per usual (Score:5, Informative)
"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:Poor, as per usual (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (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 toda
Re: (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.
Thx for that (Score:2)
Plus 500 years is a very, very long time. That would be at least twenty generations.
Re: (Score:2)
"country" - perhaps they mean the OTHER meaning of country, ala 'area'? Maybe they don't mean the precise "nation/state" that you're debating.
And instead of "first royal dynasty" I'm sure it would have been so much more accurate for them to say "...the region's furthest-back prehistorical group that we've found to date who were probably related, probably over a series of generations, and clearly either had the power to command significant time and effort from othe
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that late neolithic grooveware pottery is found in Britain everywhere from the Orkneys to the south coast indicates that there must have been active links between the people who made it. Grooveware has a very distinctive type of geometric pattern on it that's unique to Britain, so the similarities between examples found at both ends of the plac
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't say much in reply other than your position is utterly at odds with all known existing archaeolog
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
NO. it didnt. (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (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 forgin
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
for example it is believed that the Sphinx is built at the time of the great pyramid. yet, recently a climatologist and a geologist have found evidence that sphinx had experienced erosion in its base that is almost identical to what buildings experience during rainfloods that happen in tropical rainfores
hmm.. (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, that's this year's theory (Score:3, Insightful)
"Sacred" Means "Don't Touch" (Score:2)
So "sacred" really is primarily a way for a society to protect something's in
Before the stone... (Score:2)
Before Stonehenge there was Strawhenge and Woodhenge...
It was King Arthur of course (Score:2)
So does this mean... (Score:2)
Ouch.
The Pi King (Score:1)
The "Mystery" Solved (Score:1)
What a strange coincidence(?)
An important discovery is announced immediately before the airing of a TV program about Stonehenge featuring the same archeologist's findings.
The mystical power of those stones is awesome!
Logic (Score:1)
-The first thing we need to ask the first aliens we meet is weather or not they accept Jesus Christ as thier savior!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Marc Loriau (Score:1)
Bad design (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:1)