Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United Kingdom Science

Huge Ritual Arena Discovered Near Stonehenge 126

Posted by samzenpus from the look-what-we-found dept.
New submitter pabloApicco writes: A row of 90 megalithic stones has been found buried beneath a grassy bank only two miles from the world-famous site of Stonehenge in Wiltshire, England. Believed to have been a huge ritual monument, the long line of megalithic stones lies 3 feet underground, and was found using sophisticated radar equipment. “What we are starting to see is the largest surviving stone monument, preserved underneath a bank, that has ever been discovered in Britain and possibly in Europe,” said Vince Gaffney, an archaeologist at Bradford University who leads the Stonehenge Hidden Landscape project. “This is archeology on steroids.” Here's a satellite map of the new site.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Huge Ritual Arena Discovered Near Stonehenge More

Huge Ritual Arena Discovered Near Stonehenge

Comments Filter:

    • Re:That's cool. (Score:4, Informative)

      by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Tuesday September 08, 2015 @04:12AM (#50476951) Homepage Journal

      the map link sucks.

      would be fine if it outlined the area and placement or something.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Booz ( 2473568 )

        the link is broken and results in a 404 not found error.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by JMJimmy ( 2036122 )

        Map link didn't work with AdBlock/Privacy Badger... oh well, there's a good enough video & map in the first link.

        It's funny they call this a monument/ritual area. To me it looks like a defensive structure - large stones to break up horse attacks, quick drop offs to either fill with oil/water or just to break legs/slow attacks of infantry/horses as they charge in. Opening is closest to the stream for easy access to water. Pretty standard looking military fort/permanent settlement to me.

        • Re:That's cool. (Score:5, Informative)

          by wheelbarrio ( 1784594 ) on Tuesday September 08, 2015 @05:11AM (#50477087)
          This is claimed to be a Neolithic structure; the earliest evidence of horse domestication in Britain is from Bronze Age times, military use even later.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by gtall ( 79522 )

            I think the researchers are missing the obvious explanation, structures like this were community toilets. The ring shape was so the Druids could exchange news of the day.

            • This was built something like 2000 years before the Druids. OK, we'll allow the Druids significant existence before the Romans mentioned the : 1500 years before the Druids.

              In American (well, I'm not very familiar with American archaeology), this would be in excess of two millennia before the first Maya empire, closer to three thousand years before the Mound Builders. Close to 4 millennia before Americans started speaking English (after a fashion).

          • Those types of defenses would have similar effects for both horse and infantry attacks so it could be it's just meant for the latter. Stones cut the attack area in half/funnel attackers between them causing "log jams", ditches have two effects, first sudden drop offs in terrain force attackers to either slow down or risk injury by jumping down and second cause a slowdown as they try to climb up the far side and sets them off balance for defending forces to more easily dispatch them. Horses or not it sugge

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by Rei ( 128717 )

              There's no reason why a person would go through the effort to haul such massive stones when they could build an equivalent wall out of smaller ones.

              • There's no reason why a person would go through the effort to haul such massive stones when they could build an equivalent wall out of smaller ones.

                Physics 101: 200lbs man vs large rock: large rock wins. 200lbs man vs pile of small rocks: man wins.

                Besides the obvious, this wasn't a wall. Think of it like primitive hedgehogs (not the animals). The goal isn't to wall yourself in but put obstacles in the way.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by Rei ( 128717 )

                  Physics 101: 200lbs man vs large rock: large rock wins. 200lbs man vs pile of small rocks: man wins.

                  Not according to every stone wall built throughout human history. There's a reason they're made out of smaller (albeit still heavy) rocks: it's far, far more practical.

                  • Physics 101: 200lbs man vs large rock: large rock wins. 200lbs man vs pile of small rocks: man wins.

                    Not according to every stone wall built throughout human history. There's a reason they're made out of smaller (albeit still heavy) rocks: it's far, far more practical.

                    a) Not a wall
                    b) Small stone walls, if piled, would need to be nearly as wide as it is tall to have the same effect. These rocks are up to 4.5m tall which means you'd need ~5,000 1x1x1 stones vs ~200 large stones. Since 1x1x1 stones aren't that common you'd probably be looking at closer to 20,000 stones.
                    c) Every stone wall built throughout human history that was narrow, tall, and unsupported was easy to knock over because: physics.

                    • They didn't have the means to move these stones other than with human power (dragging them on the ground). The time and effort expended to move stones that large would not be comprehensible for anything other than ritual and religion. This would have taken hundreds of years to build, long beyond the range of any ruler or military defense. Much like the cathedrals of europe that took multiple lifetimes to build the only way to supply labor for these types of things is to make that labor free through religiou

                    • b) Small stone walls, if piled, would need to be nearly as wide as it is tall to have the same effect.

                      You plainly have never seen a drystone dyke.

                    • They had beasts of burden, they knew how to roll stones on logs. It would not have taken hundreds of years. These are not the 9m/50 ton stones found in Stonehenge, these are MAXIMUM 4.5m & ~15 tons. A dog can pull 5 tons on rollers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] - these rocks would have been nothing for a couple 1 ton bulls rolling them over logs.

                    • They didn't have the means to move these stones other than with human power (dragging them on the ground). The time and effort expended to move stones that large would not be comprehensible for anything other than ritual and religion. This would have taken hundreds of years to build, long beyond the range of any ruler or military defense. Much like the cathedrals of europe that took multiple lifetimes to build the only way to supply labor for these types of things is to make that labor free through religious worship.

                      Did the Egyptian's build the pyramids for defensive purposes or religious purposes?

                      It's funny you mention the Egyptian pyramids because I was going to use them as a counter point. All the experts say they were build to be burial chambers for the pharaohs. The problem with that theory is that no body has ever been found in any Egyptian pyramid. Even ones that appear to have been undisturbed. Once a theory takes strong root in the academic community, it can be very hard to change. Plenty of people interpret everything they see in light of the theory they have been told is correct, but turns

                    • b) Small stone walls, if piled, would need to be nearly as wide as it is tall to have the same effect.

                      You plainly have never seen a drystone dyke.

                      Actually, we have one on our property. If you knew about maintaining dry stone dykes, you'd know that they often have to be rebuilt in small sections due to wind or animals knocking them over. While something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] looks nice and sturdy, it's susceptible to collapse from lateral forces, especially the higher it gets.

                  • Here's a video demonstrating the concept of what I'm talking about in my other reply: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

                  • Not according to every stone wall built throughout human history.

                    Eh, wot about the Pyramids mate? That's got funny walls, but...

                    Seriously though, there's some pretty staggering direct counterexamples in Sudamerica... Nobody really knows why they bothered and in some cases still don't know how they managed it.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by Rei ( 128717 )

                      The pyramids were tombs, not walls. The difficulty of moving such large stones was part of the point.

                      I don't know what Sudamerica examples you're thinking of.

                    • The pyramids were tombs, not walls. The difficulty of moving such large stones was part of the point.

                      I don't know what Sudamerica examples you're thinking of.

                      No bodies have ever been found in a pyramid. What they were for is still up for question, but they certainly weren't tombs. The "egyptologist" who claimed that just made it up and everybody has interpreted things in that fashion ever since.

            • ditches have two effects, first sudden drop offs in terrain force attackers to either slow down or risk injury

              This would be true if there were ditches designed for defence. But they're not ditched defences, they're henges. Archaeologists use the term "henge" to describe one structure, and "ditch and rampart" to describe a different structure. ditches and ramparts, exactly as you describe them, greet the person attacking from the OUTSIDE of the structure with a drop into a ditch (up to 20ft deep and 30-40 f

              • I am not describing a rampart at all, merely the reality of both halves of an 18m deep ditch or henge enclosure if you prefer. While the wikipedia entry claims archeologists currently discount the defencive benefits of such a structure basic logic would seem to indicate this is false. If you were a group of bandits/small army charging on foot you would have to stop, carefully descend down an 18m steep incline (difficult to safely jump down), then climb 18m back up the other side. Or have a board/bridge l

                • You've missed the point. In a dyke and rampart structure, as you describe, the villagers on the inside (where there are remains of round houses, hearth, sometimes workshops, fenced corrals with elevated soil phosphate from all the shit, and lots more evidence of occupation) can indeed climb to the tops of the rampart and hurl abuse at the attackers down in the ditch. But if the same people lived in the middle of henge (without leaving evidence of settlement such as that detailed above), then on attack they'

                  • I did not describe a dyke and rampart structure. I described a U shape in the ground - no rampart at all. From what I read on the subject the latest from Durrington Walls was that, being a henge enclosure (area > 300m in diameter) and finding neolithic floors, they believe it to have been a village. Based on what they found they believed there to have been as many as 1000 small structures. As to the gateways, I don't believe these henges were designed to be perfect defences - rather a way to make it

                    • Though it being a large town/city does fit with the current theory on Stonehenge, that it was built as a place to unify the tribes of Britain and therefore would have been a place to draw people/have commerce/etc. like modern capitols do.

                      That is ONE of the theories. Which is hampered by problems like, we don't know of any unusually large concentrations of population in the area (compared to the rest of the country). There are no real increases in the finds of "trade goods" in the area (yes, they are there ;

                    • Academic journals mostly, check the work of Professor Parker Pearson

        • This would only make sense if there was anything of value inside the stone structure that is worth protecting - but there isn't. There's no remnants of housing or a castle or anything inside the semi-circle. You don't just take your army up the hill and park it inside a stone circle to protect it from invaders - you have to *also* protect your farms, cattle, granaries, etc.

          There's more chance it's a ritual site or calendar than some sort of defensive structure.

          • I would venture a guess and say that it was the home of Neolithic long house(s). The orientation would put the single doorway away from the prevailing winds and facing the opening near the water. These were, generally, not made of stone. That might also suggest that Stonehenge was a megalithic tomb.

          • Doing a little research I learned, they have found neolithic floors inside the circle and they believe it to have been a village though much of it was destroyed by later farming and road construction. If it was filled there may have been as many as 1000 structures inside but that sounds a bit high to me.

          • Actually, the living areas were built a millennium or so AFTER this line of stones. This is under the well-known Durrington Walls site. (The "Walls" part of the place name is unrelated to what is being so airily and incorrectly described as a defensive structure up-thread.)

      • the map link sucks.

        would be fine if it outlined the area and placement or something.

        I checked before submitting this article myself. I'd of posted http://www.usatoday.com/story/... [usatoday.com] as my link which shows the stones that have been uncovered.

    • Yeah, it shows us conclusively that a long time ago people did some stuff that they thought was really important at the time, but ended up not meaning anything.

  • Hmm (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Isn't bit racist and arrogant to think that people were just doing rituals and nothing important ?

    • Re:Hmm (Score:5, Funny)

      by peon_a-z,A-Z,0-9$_+! ( 2743031 ) on Tuesday September 08, 2015 @05:04AM (#50477079)

      Millennia after the impending nuclear war, archaeologists (under a different name in some new language, presumably "fjjakkjalers") will unearth evidence of a giant ring 27km in circumference on what is now the Franco-Swiss border.

      Finding various "artifacts" (perhaps called "harahalnangs" in the future language), the fjjakkjalers will construct a 'theory' of polytheism, since the different sizes of identical tools found repeatedly throughout the site were obviously connected to many gods of different sizes.

      Upon further inspection, they might see that this giant ring had fragments of a tube throughout its circumference, perhaps alluding to the passage of some material through this tube in the shape of small balls ("balls" in the future language), which would have been identified as a form of torture yet to be fully explained by the torturers of the future ("internet commentators", in the future language).

    • it's like junk DNA in 15 years ago and dark matter now. religious rituals is the catch all we don't know what it is term for archeologists

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Isn't it a bit arrogant of you to assume that rituals are not important?

    • "Ritual" is archaeologist's English for "they were doing something, and they were doing it in an organized and consistent way, and it wasn't farming, or fighting, but we really don't have any real idea what they were actually doing. It's an expression of archaeologist's ignorance as much as anything else.

      (And any archaeologist you cared to ask would have told you this. It's no secret.)

  • No spinal tap references?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rjforster ( 2130 )

      Exactly. All the dwellings of the various demons should be fully enumerated by now. Similarly the standard of living of the Banshees should be compared and ranked against the leading countries today.
      Are the tunes that the children dance to available on Spotify? Inquiring minds wish to know.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by JSG ( 82708 )

      It's Stonehenge turned up to 11.

    • >> long line of megalithic stones lies 3 feet underground

      I believe they meant 3 INCHES underground.

  • Pre-Historic Particle Accelerator (Score:3)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Tuesday September 08, 2015 @05:00AM (#50477063) Homepage Journal
    They were working on a particle accelerator, but were interrupted.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Rei ( 128717 )

      Am I the only one who can't read one of these articles without picturing the "It was aliens!" guy?

      • Re:Pre-Historic Particle Accelerator (Score:4, Funny)

        by gtall ( 79522 ) on Tuesday September 08, 2015 @05:41AM (#50477129)

        Giorgio Tsoukalos is one of the finest deep thinkers the planet has ever produced. One can tell just by looking at the electric hair. Where Einstein failed to find the Grand Unified Field theory, Giorgio has partially succeeded: Aliens run the entire universe secretly. This is only partially true, cats rule the Aliens and hence us.

      • "Is it possible, possible, that these giant stones were placed here by visitors from another world? The answer...is yes!"

  • Lucky somebody didn't mix up the units, or it would have only been 3 inches deep.

  • For Ritual Read ... (Score:3)

    by JasterBobaMereel ( 1102861 ) on Tuesday September 08, 2015 @05:55AM (#50477177)

    the word "Ritual" in archeology is shorthand for we don't know what this was for perhaps it had some ritual purpose ?

    • Re:For Ritual Read ... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Xest ( 935314 ) on Tuesday September 08, 2015 @07:41AM (#50477573)

      That describes the topic of "History" in general.

      I recall watching a documentary about how they now thing Tutankhamun died.

      It was the most absurdly convoluted story I've seen involving him falling off the back of a chariot and landing in just the right manner to fracture his leg, for him to then have been up on his knees (despite his leg being fractured) and then getting hit by the wheel of another chariot at just the right angle to do some damage to his chest followed by a further bunch of random reasons why he then had to be buried quickly.

      And that's okay, theories are good, but the problem is there was absolutely no real worthwhile evidence at all - they'd effectively created evidence to match their theory, rather than found evidence to back up their theory. They created this convoluted bodged computer simulations that were like "If it just hits him like this then you get this sort of damage!" - great, I can also think of a thousand other ways and things that could hit him just like that to create that damage which I could also simulate, why is your chariot one correct? He could just as well have been smacked around the leg with a club "in just the right way" by someone beating him to death, and then smacked even harder across the shoulder "in just the right way" and ended up in the exact same state with a completely different theory about the rapid burial, like it beginning to rain and thunder that day and the burial guy just wanting to get the job done and clock off home early so he can get his washing in that he left outside to dry before it gets too wet.

      But I find this typical when watching history programmes, a "Historian" comes up with a theory and then makes up some evidence to show why their theory is right. There's a common lack of conclusiveness to their evidence, and it's possible to come up with a thousand other theories and fudge evidence in the same way, none of which has any more reason to be correct than the other.

      It feels like in many cases history has become one of the most horribly unscientific subjects out there, it's become about story telling, you make up a story and then pretend something shows something conclusively (even though there's no conclusiveness at all) and declare yourself the world expert on that aspect of history. It seems to have become a modern day snake oil industry - you make up a fancy story, and just declare it true with supporting evidence that's entirely circumstantial or in itself just wholly made up or theoretical and unproven.

      Long gone is the truth of the "History is written by winners" saying, nowadays history is written by anyone with a pet theory that they simply declare to be true true. Evidence and scrutiny not required. Bonus points if you write up your theory into a book and sell it as the self-described "leading work on the subject".

      Fact is, with a lot of history, as you imply, we simply have absolutely no fucking idea what went on or why and at best we're just making shit up.

      • Long gone is the truth of the "History is written by winners" saying,

        Today, more than ever before, there is likely to be an actual visual record of an event. The winners are most likely to be in possession of this record...

        • Doesn't stop holocaust deniers.

          • Doesn't stop holocaust deniers.

            Oh man, there's nothing like that feeling you get when someone you thought was smart starts denying the holocaust, or worse yet, starts talking some shit about "I haven't looked into it" or "some people believe..." ugh.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by dave420 ( 699308 )
        You are confusing the subjects "history" and "history as portrayed in a TV show". Don't. When you lash out at "history as portrayed in a TV show" but call it "history" you will look rather foolish. As you just found out.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Xest ( 935314 )

          Right, except the example I gave re: Tutankhamun was produced by a Professor of Egyptology, presented in a TV show, accompanied with a book, and written up on Wikipedia.

          So given that the history you say is portrayed in a TV show and agree is problematic is the same as that professed by academia, literature, and the web, where exactly do I find this real history of which you speak?

          I don't think you can really talk about foolishness when you seem to have made a throw away statement that doesn't really tie in

          • So given that the history you say is portrayed in a TV show and agree is problematic is the same as that professed by academia, literature, and the web, where exactly do I find this real history of which you speak?

            Six months into the first five years of your PhD in Egyptology.

            Just read the first thousand papers that come to hand. That'll give you a good start on the subject.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Xest ( 935314 )

              And if those historic papers written by people who still respected the scientific method don't cover anything new, then where do you go?

              What goes so badly wrong that people who once read, or perhaps even wrote some of those papers no longer believe that theories need proof, and simply declaring them fact is good enough?

              You're right, I can go back and read historic papers from that time where scientific method was adhered to, and that is indeed a good starting point for stuff we've already long figured out.

      • There is a fairly recent documentary called Stonehenge Empire where they detail the newest archeological finds showing Stonehenge was a relatively small part of a much larger complex of stone structures, fences, and burial sites. The burial sites include evidence of people traveling from the European continent to be buried at that site which helps support that the idea that the site was religious or spiritual in nature.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Xest ( 935314 )

          "The burial sites include evidence of people traveling from the European continent to be buried at that site which helps support that the idea that the site was religious or spiritual in nature."

          Does it support that? or could it just as easily support an alternative theory, that, say, there were continent renowned craftspeople selling goods there meaning it was actually just a major trading hub?

          This is really the problem I'm referring to, it's all just finger in the air stuff. Without widespread evidence of

          • Trying to unravel events that happened over 5000 years ago always includes lots of competing interpretations based on a limited amount of hard evidence. I never claimed what they found pointed proved anything. It's just another data point to add to the others.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Xest ( 935314 )

              "Trying to unravel events that happened over 5000 years ago always includes lots of competing interpretations based on a limited amount of hard evidence."

              I absolutely agree, my point is basically that historians should be giving a lot more "We simply don't know for sure" type responses rather than the common "My pet theory is absolutely what happened!".

              There seems to be this desperation amongst modern historians to try and be the one that proved some event in history, but without having to put in the actual

          • could it just as easily support an alternative theory, that, say, there were continent renowned craftspeople

            Most workshops leave an archaeological trace - knapped chips from flint, wood shavings, hearths. To the best of my knowledge, nothing has been found in the the area that is inconsistent with normal (i.e. subsistence farming) inhabitation.

            On the other hand, the mounds of pig's right forelimbs (and no other parts of their bodies) do speak of something structured, organized, consistent ... and quite bi

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Xest ( 935314 )

              "Most workshops leave an archaeological trace - knapped chips from flint, wood shavings, hearths. To the best of my knowledge, nothing has been found in the the area that is inconsistent with normal (i.e. subsistence farming) inhabitation."

              I don't think they've really dug enough in the area to find much in the first place, but even this doesn't preclude the possibility, the actual craftsmanship may have been done further away, the area could simply have been a place of trade. In fact, it would seem incredib

              • I don't think they've really dug enough in the area to find much in the first place, but even this doesn't preclude the possibility, the actual craftsmanship may have been done further away, the area could simply have been a place of trade

                If you look at Prof Gaffney's CV you'll see that he's a "landscape archaeologist" ; i.e. he specialises in looking at sites in their context of the whole landscape, which in the Stonehenge Landscape Project is an area around 30 miles across, not even centred on Stonehenge,

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by Xest ( 935314 )

                  "You're projecting modern experience onto a landscape and society which is very different."

                  On the contrary, I'm arguing that this relatively modern belief that any less advanced society must be obsessed with rituals including blood sacrifice and similar is an incredibly naive viewpoint and a relic of our imperialist history more than anything else. It's a projection of our observation of some of the societies we discovered and crushed in our more recent history onto all less advanced societies rather than a

                  • On the contrary, I'm arguing that this relatively modern belief that any less advanced society must be obsessed with rituals

                    "ritual" is a label for things which are organised, consistent and repeated, but whose purpose we don't understand. That is where it's meaning ends. Full stop, end of logical construct built on top of the label. Perhaps it would be better if archaeologists were to use the label "frumpstiggle", or "qwertgfdsa", but the usage developed some time ago, and terminology is one of the less f

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by Xest ( 935314 )

                      ""ritual" is a label for things which are organised, consistent and repeated, but whose purpose we don't understand. That is where it's meaning ends. Full stop, end of logical construct built on top of the label"

                      I suggest you have a look at the dictionary definition of ritual. It very much has a religious intent to it. So I'd hold off on your need to attack TV interpretations, when they're using the exact interpretation the vast majority of the population use. If you've determined your own definition then t

                    • I suggest you have a look at the dictionary definition of ritual. It very much has a religious intent to it.

                      ... however, when it is used by ARCHAEOLOGISTS in an ARCHAEOLOGICAL context, that is not what it means. (Incidentally, "context" is another term that has a noticeably different usage in archaeology to common English.).

                      Why not just use a term like "activity" instead of ritual which has a clear religious slant to it?

                      Great idea. Where do I come to get into the time machine and go back and change the ter

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by Xest ( 935314 )

                      ".. however, when it is used by ARCHAEOLOGISTS in an ARCHAEOLOGICAL context, that is not what it means. (Incidentally, "context" is another term that has a noticeably different usage in archaeology to common English.)."

                      So maybe that's the problem? that archaeologists have invented their own language that isn't English because it has completely different definitions for words? Again though, that's clearly a problem with archaeology than everyone else if it insists on making up it's own definitions. You can't

      • Currently hippos are the most deadly animal in tropical Africa. And they lived in the Nile until recently. I heard this at a talk at the Denver Egyptian Study Society from a medical pathologist.

  • It looks smaller to me ...

  • My daughter plays with stones all the time in the garden, building hotels for bugs apparently, all these stones are just some bored kids trying to out do each other a few thousand years ago, it started off as a hotel for bugs (probably big alien ones - I've seen starship troopers), and now the "experts of the day" decide it's a place of ritual or worship...

  • It was aliens what built it.

  • ..in those days, your iPhone was not a handheld, and the only entry in your Contacts list went to the Gods.

    [What if iPhone model numbers could go negative?]

  • typical British builders (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    They said they would be back on Tuesday to finish it!

  • Perhaps not so different with megalithic temples too.

  • :-) What if this is just a stone pillars inside soil/wood filled defense walls? :-D I guess that would be less exotic then ritual arena with human sacrifices... so lets go with Ritual Arena.

  • This is a NASCAR track.

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close