There's only two problems i have with this idea. One is that things deteriorate over time, so the stones could have once been well put together at some point, completed or not. The second is that through much research, there was no Bluestone fragments in the water, which would have been there if the glaciers did bring the over
Brian, using your 'if its not there it never existed' remains theory, could you list me all the 'whole' prehistoric monuments of Britain or even the World??
If you find that impossible - we'll accept Roman Buildings instead - they employed Irish builders as well I believe - shame none of them ever got finished!
@Nakedarchaeologist I'm simply trying to apply some logic here, for this particular ancient monument. The archaeologists assume -- almost without exception -- that the monument was completed in its pristine or "immaculate" form. I'm questioning that assumption, and asking what the EVIDENCE on the ground actually shows us. It shows us a drastically incomplete monument with many empty stone holes and signs of indecision and re-setting of many stones. And scores of stones missing.
Its a wreck as its 10,000 years old, even the pyramids in their dry climate look a 'bit shabby'. As for the lack of stones, you clearly had a bad experience with a 'doggy builder' in the past, for only about 2 larger Saracen stones 9 Lintels are missing.
When you buy my new book in the autumn 'Dawn of the Lost Civilisation' you will find an illustration explaining that it was a 'crescent moon' monument, built within a representation of the sun 'the moat'. RJL
@Nakedarchaeologist Well, you're welcome to your opinions, Robert. You call them assumptions -- I call them well-based and carefully considered conclusions. Time will tell which one of us is on the ball, and which one is out with the fairies!
Only 11 sarsens missing? Come off it -- even the archaeologists admit to far more than that which are missing and which in my view were never there in the first place.
.... and without skeptics we would still think the earth is flat, and that our little planet is the centre of the universe. Not a bad idea to think a bit now and then, instead of simply believing in fantasies.
@plasingli actually it was skeptics who were shouting the earth is flt and we are center of universe, its only every been those who think outside so called accepted norms that push us forward, for instance theres not really one shred of evidence that the ancient eygptions buildt the pyramids they lived by. not one hiroglyph states they built them, they talk of them being built by what they called the sun gods, but not once did they say they built them,
Yes, I agree. Man has always been a scavenging, opportunistic species. We always use what is readily available rather than using what is not readily available -- so I think that is why Stonehenge was changed from a henge monument based on a circular embankment into something a great deal more exotic -- with stone settings, trilithons etc. Simply because the stones were readily available in the neighbourhood. When they were gone, the builders gave up and walked away.....
It is stones. PERIOD Nicely arranged? Perhaps. But only if it were my daughter in our garden arranging rocks for her barbie dolls to play house in. You expect this sort of formation from a child. How logical would it be though for her to go next door to gather what we have already in our own yard? How intelligent can a builder truly be to travel so far for mere stones? This is proof of prehistoric intelligence from a Homo Sapien? A bit difficult to imagine.
It is stones. PERIOD (Nicely arranged? Perhaps, if it were my daughter in the garden arranging rocks, but how logical would it be for her to travel a whole block on her bike to fetch what we already have in our own yard. So how intelligent can a builder/architect truly be to travel so far for mere stones? This is proof of prehistoric intelligence from Homo sapiens? It is very difficult for me to imagine. JD
How prominent is Stonehenge in its landscape? Not very, as thousands of visitors would agree. With reference to the "highest importance" of Stonehenge, no real problem with that, although we have to remember that Stonehenge is very intensively investigated compared with many other sites. Is there a relationship between recorded finds and digging effort by modern archaeologists?
@plasingli Sure there are other sites only now being recognised as being of vast importance (Marden, Stanton Drew) but the fact still remains SH is the only lintelled temple.Durrington Walls has, so far, the biggest european neolithic village & the worlds first metalled road. That's sure of high importance. Add to that the largest amount of rich barrows, prehistoric gold, & highest burial concentration. With all the investigation in the world, you'd be hard pressed to find better example.
@sonofherne Quote: "the fact still remains SH is the only lintelled temple". Hum hum. Would you please care to use the word "speculation" instead of "fact"?
@plasingli But it's closer to a building of worship than not by sheer fact of the architecture. Perhaps the word is too liberally used, but I hate calling it a monument. It seems everyone has a different terminology for it and temple is just as good as any other.
@sonofherne Yes, it's difficult to find the right word. As an indicator of grand design, or purpose, I suppose "temple" will do, but there is a strong association with spirituality or reverence, which could (and has been, ad infinitum!) be disputed. I think I prefer "monument" on the whole -- more neutral as to purpose. Then we could always use "jerrybuilt ruin" -- which I rather like. By the way, I didn't coin that term -- somebody else did!
@sonofherne@sonofherne Yes, it's difficult to find the right word. As an indicator of grand design, or purpose, I suppose "temple" will do, but there is a strong association with spirituality or reverence, which could (and has been, ad infinitum!) be disputed. I think I prefer "monument" on the whole -- more neutral as to purpose. Then we could always use "jerrybuilt ruin" -- which I rather like. By the way, I didn't coin that term -- somebody else did!
Well, most circles aren't that prominent are they. People seem to have this illusion they must be perched on some rocky precipice. Have you talked to these thousands of visitors then? I know some have questioned the location like you. Well, why not? It's in an area of the country that has extremely good agriculture, important to the neolithic farmers. It's in a bowl of a valley, with a ready made artificial horizon. Also there's been ritual activity there since 8,000bc.
@sonofherne I'm not really bothered whether Stonehenge is perceived to be prominent or not. I don't sit at the Visitor Centre and talk to thousands of visitors -- but from trawling blogs and twitters etc my perception is that there are vast numbers who think Stonehenge is spectacular -- in part because they WANT it to be -- and also rather large numbers who are very disappointed, and think it very small and insignificant. You pays your money and you takes your choice.
I'd not consider SH as standing on "a hill" Its approach does give a purposeful theatrical illusion with the tiering of the taller horseshoe along the NE SW alignment. Take your point about the hybrid aspect of the monument, but think it's more a coming together of different ideas - the burials are the richest in the British Isles so SH was considered of the highest importance, whether complete or continuing to evolve.
How prominent is Stonehenge in its landscape? Not very, as thousands of visitors would agree. With reference to the "highest importance" of Stonehenge, no real problem with that, although we have to remember that Stonehenge is very intensively investigated compared with many other sites. Is there a relationship between recorded finds and digging effort by modern archaeologists?
Unlike what you claim, latest geophys evidence has shown up stone holes, some holding broken stumps still & a buried sarsen found under A344. Whilst we concur with the idea that it mightn't have been complete, its fair to say it's far more complete than today. Lord Antrobus spun the tale of catching people trying to haul one off at the beginning of the last century. Amesbury has stones under foundations from SH.
@sonofherne Which "latest geophys evidence" are you referring to? Sure, there are stone holes everywhere -- but I'm talking about the "empty section" of the trilithon circle. Of course there are many records of Stonehenge being used as a quarry, but I find it hard to believe that such a large number of sarsens can have been broken up and carted off. After all, if people were so desperate for sarsens, there were plenty of others lying about on Salisbury Plain.
@plasingli That's just it. Where's the proof there are plenty of others lying on Salisbury Plain? I'm going on an extremely recent high intensity survey of the monument, including its interior that I was lucky to help with. The results as yet are unpublished, so I can't tell you a lot more right now, but I assure you there are stone holes on the "empty" section as you put it. The last geophys survey was about 10yrs ago and I believe this is the very first time we have gotten in so close.
@sonofherne Just going on maps of sarsen distributions -- but this is difficult territory. And of course the absence of sarsens in a locality might mean they weren't there in the first place (Chris Green), or alternatively that they have all been collected up (Kellaway). No way of knowing. I'll be interested to see the evidence re more stone holes when it's published....
@plasingli Why is this such a problem for you? It's happen at many circles, some now totally missing. It's even in the records that an early antiquarian lamented that every visit stones were missing. Ask the highways agency. Much of the road has broken sarsen. A house nearby has a bluestone mantlepiece above their fire. If you were local, would you go 20 miles for building material or would you take stone for free which is right under your nose. Not saying its right,but that was what they did.
@sonofherne Sorry -- what's a problem? The breaking up of stones? I'm not disputing that it happened -- there is plenty of documented evidence that it did. But 70 or so large stones smashed to pieces and carted off, without trace? Hmmm.... I'm just trying to get away from speculations and fantasy and back to hard evidence. Show me some hard evidence that there were 80 bluestones and 80 sarsens on the site, and I'll believe you.
@sonofherne You say "If you were local, would you go 20 miles for building material or would you take stone for free which is right under your nose. Not saying its right,but that was what they did." Precisely my point -- that's why the builders of Stonehenge used the stones that were readily to hand -- why would they go 200 miles to Mynydd Preseli to collect a vast assortment of stones of all shapes and sizes, including a great deal of "rubbish stone" including soft ashes and flaky sandstones?
@plasingli I agree, with reservations. We seem to be switching between sarsen & bluestones, which are we talking about? Bluestones. There are various tufts, sizes & shapes, agree. Not the best of the lot by any means. If they had gone that far to source & mine bluestone they would surely pick the best, not the average & from all over Pembrokeshire. But there's a problem. We are now fairly sure the bluestones were already in several formations BEFORE where they are now, taken out & refixed.
@sonofherne Interesting debate, Sonofherne! And thanks for your constructive comments -- much appreciated. Yes, the bluestones are a pretty mottley collection -- if you look at the geology of the orthostats and the fragments from the Stonehenge environs, we are up to 24 different sources, and going up...... but why is it a problem if bluestones were used and re-used throughout the area? No problem as far as I am concerned! That's exactly what would happen with a scatter of erratics...
I was using this to illustrate the idea that the mismatched shapes at the henge might be because they had been used in other circles beforehand and not necessarily from just being random erratics. Either way, it's a very interesting debate as you say, which is why I like Aubrey Burl's work - an archaeologist who isn't afraid to be controversial. He did favour human transport but went out on a limb & now favours the glacial idea like yourself. I have to say, I'm liking the idea more & more.
Some of the bluestones have tooling work. We even have a couple of bluestone lintels & ones which have eroded tenons. One of the largest has a groove which would appear to connect with a bluestone (reburied when excavated) There's evidence of at least 2 bluestone structures in the landscape, West Amesbury & Fargo, plus random bluestone chips elsewhere at Woodhenge,Coneybury. I'm wandering why Stanton Drew didn't use bluestone if they were so randomly distributed. It's much nearer the estuary
@sonofherne Yes, familiar with all of that. if they wanted to carve, shape and bash the stones they had in their collection, that's fine by me. I too have wondered about Stanton Drew -- Kellaway thought that the stones used there were erratics, but from a different stream of ice with a northerly component in it. I think I agree with him.
Stonehenge was created as a meeting place for people who practice witchcraft. Europe before was full of BS when it comes to that.
pogpog28 6 months ago
The World is Flat; I have seen the evidence, I lived in Holland Which boasts the
World's smallest Waterfall at a mere 1.03 Millimetres..Even its lakes are Flat..
niallobinghe 7 months ago
You Sir..Are a Poorly Constucted Shambles..
niallobinghe 7 months ago
this idiot fails to mention the sun and moon winter and summer solstice goes right through the middle of stonge henge
realityexplorations 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There's only two problems i have with this idea. One is that things deteriorate over time, so the stones could have once been well put together at some point, completed or not. The second is that through much research, there was no Bluestone fragments in the water, which would have been there if the glaciers did bring the over
IansMadWorld888 1 year ago
Comment removed
IansMadWorld888 1 year ago
Reconstructions of ancient monuments are none too easy -- frowned upon by the powers that be. Anyway, there aren't enough stones.....
plasingli 1 year ago
why hasnt anyone ever wanted to finish it? there has to be some significance to someone out there to finish it
gloalath 1 year ago
Brian, using your 'if its not there it never existed' remains theory, could you list me all the 'whole' prehistoric monuments of Britain or even the World??
If you find that impossible - we'll accept Roman Buildings instead - they employed Irish builders as well I believe - shame none of them ever got finished!
Lol!! - Unhinged is apt title.
RJL
Nakedarchaeologist 1 year ago
@Nakedarchaeologist I'm simply trying to apply some logic here, for this particular ancient monument. The archaeologists assume -- almost without exception -- that the monument was completed in its pristine or "immaculate" form. I'm questioning that assumption, and asking what the EVIDENCE on the ground actually shows us. It shows us a drastically incomplete monument with many empty stone holes and signs of indecision and re-setting of many stones. And scores of stones missing.
plasingli 1 year ago
Too many poor assumptions Brian!
Its a wreck as its 10,000 years old, even the pyramids in their dry climate look a 'bit shabby'. As for the lack of stones, you clearly had a bad experience with a 'doggy builder' in the past, for only about 2 larger Saracen stones 9 Lintels are missing.
When you buy my new book in the autumn 'Dawn of the Lost Civilisation' you will find an illustration explaining that it was a 'crescent moon' monument, built within a representation of the sun 'the moat'. RJL
Nakedarchaeologist 1 year ago
@Nakedarchaeologist Well, you're welcome to your opinions, Robert. You call them assumptions -- I call them well-based and carefully considered conclusions. Time will tell which one of us is on the ball, and which one is out with the fairies!
Only 11 sarsens missing? Come off it -- even the archaeologists admit to far more than that which are missing and which in my view were never there in the first place.
plasingli 1 year ago
.... and without skeptics we would still think the earth is flat, and that our little planet is the centre of the universe. Not a bad idea to think a bit now and then, instead of simply believing in fantasies.
plasingli 1 year ago
@plasingli actually it was skeptics who were shouting the earth is flt and we are center of universe, its only every been those who think outside so called accepted norms that push us forward, for instance theres not really one shred of evidence that the ancient eygptions buildt the pyramids they lived by. not one hiroglyph states they built them, they talk of them being built by what they called the sun gods, but not once did they say they built them,
realityexplorations 11 months ago
...and the next victim of this theory is the Great Pyramid was never finished also...there seems to be a lot missing!
Skeptics are boring, if they can something because it's missing they should have been cops.
athame57 1 year ago
Yes, I agree. Man has always been a scavenging, opportunistic species. We always use what is readily available rather than using what is not readily available -- so I think that is why Stonehenge was changed from a henge monument based on a circular embankment into something a great deal more exotic -- with stone settings, trilithons etc. Simply because the stones were readily available in the neighbourhood. When they were gone, the builders gave up and walked away.....
plasingli 1 year ago
It is stones. PERIOD Nicely arranged? Perhaps. But only if it were my daughter in our garden arranging rocks for her barbie dolls to play house in. You expect this sort of formation from a child. How logical would it be though for her to go next door to gather what we have already in our own yard? How intelligent can a builder truly be to travel so far for mere stones? This is proof of prehistoric intelligence from a Homo Sapien? A bit difficult to imagine.
jeninediconti 1 year ago
It is stones. PERIOD (Nicely arranged? Perhaps, if it were my daughter in the garden arranging rocks, but how logical would it be for her to travel a whole block on her bike to fetch what we already have in our own yard. So how intelligent can a builder/architect truly be to travel so far for mere stones? This is proof of prehistoric intelligence from Homo sapiens? It is very difficult for me to imagine. JD
jeninediconti 1 year ago
How prominent is Stonehenge in its landscape? Not very, as thousands of visitors would agree. With reference to the "highest importance" of Stonehenge, no real problem with that, although we have to remember that Stonehenge is very intensively investigated compared with many other sites. Is there a relationship between recorded finds and digging effort by modern archaeologists?
plasingli 1 year ago
@plasingli Sure there are other sites only now being recognised as being of vast importance (Marden, Stanton Drew) but the fact still remains SH is the only lintelled temple.Durrington Walls has, so far, the biggest european neolithic village & the worlds first metalled road. That's sure of high importance. Add to that the largest amount of rich barrows, prehistoric gold, & highest burial concentration. With all the investigation in the world, you'd be hard pressed to find better example.
sonofherne 1 year ago
@sonofherne Quote: "the fact still remains SH is the only lintelled temple". Hum hum. Would you please care to use the word "speculation" instead of "fact"?
plasingli 1 year ago
@plasingli This isn't speculation. To date there is no other megalithic monument that is lintelled and has mortice & tenon joints.
sonofherne 1 year ago
@sonofherne Yes, I know that. It's the "temple" bit that I take issue with.......
plasingli 1 year ago
@plasingli But it's closer to a building of worship than not by sheer fact of the architecture. Perhaps the word is too liberally used, but I hate calling it a monument. It seems everyone has a different terminology for it and temple is just as good as any other.
sonofherne 1 year ago
@sonofherne Yes, it's difficult to find the right word. As an indicator of grand design, or purpose, I suppose "temple" will do, but there is a strong association with spirituality or reverence, which could (and has been, ad infinitum!) be disputed. I think I prefer "monument" on the whole -- more neutral as to purpose. Then we could always use "jerrybuilt ruin" -- which I rather like. By the way, I didn't coin that term -- somebody else did!
plasingli 1 year ago
@sonofherne @sonofherne Yes, it's difficult to find the right word. As an indicator of grand design, or purpose, I suppose "temple" will do, but there is a strong association with spirituality or reverence, which could (and has been, ad infinitum!) be disputed. I think I prefer "monument" on the whole -- more neutral as to purpose. Then we could always use "jerrybuilt ruin" -- which I rather like. By the way, I didn't coin that term -- somebody else did!
plasingli 1 year ago
Well, most circles aren't that prominent are they. People seem to have this illusion they must be perched on some rocky precipice. Have you talked to these thousands of visitors then? I know some have questioned the location like you. Well, why not? It's in an area of the country that has extremely good agriculture, important to the neolithic farmers. It's in a bowl of a valley, with a ready made artificial horizon. Also there's been ritual activity there since 8,000bc.
sonofherne 1 year ago
@sonofherne I'm not really bothered whether Stonehenge is perceived to be prominent or not. I don't sit at the Visitor Centre and talk to thousands of visitors -- but from trawling blogs and twitters etc my perception is that there are vast numbers who think Stonehenge is spectacular -- in part because they WANT it to be -- and also rather large numbers who are very disappointed, and think it very small and insignificant. You pays your money and you takes your choice.
plasingli 1 year ago
I'd not consider SH as standing on "a hill" Its approach does give a purposeful theatrical illusion with the tiering of the taller horseshoe along the NE SW alignment. Take your point about the hybrid aspect of the monument, but think it's more a coming together of different ideas - the burials are the richest in the British Isles so SH was considered of the highest importance, whether complete or continuing to evolve.
sonofherne 1 year ago
@sonofherne
How prominent is Stonehenge in its landscape? Not very, as thousands of visitors would agree. With reference to the "highest importance" of Stonehenge, no real problem with that, although we have to remember that Stonehenge is very intensively investigated compared with many other sites. Is there a relationship between recorded finds and digging effort by modern archaeologists?
plasingli 1 year ago
Unlike what you claim, latest geophys evidence has shown up stone holes, some holding broken stumps still & a buried sarsen found under A344. Whilst we concur with the idea that it mightn't have been complete, its fair to say it's far more complete than today. Lord Antrobus spun the tale of catching people trying to haul one off at the beginning of the last century. Amesbury has stones under foundations from SH.
sonofherne 1 year ago
@sonofherne Which "latest geophys evidence" are you referring to? Sure, there are stone holes everywhere -- but I'm talking about the "empty section" of the trilithon circle. Of course there are many records of Stonehenge being used as a quarry, but I find it hard to believe that such a large number of sarsens can have been broken up and carted off. After all, if people were so desperate for sarsens, there were plenty of others lying about on Salisbury Plain.
plasingli 1 year ago
@plasingli That's just it. Where's the proof there are plenty of others lying on Salisbury Plain? I'm going on an extremely recent high intensity survey of the monument, including its interior that I was lucky to help with. The results as yet are unpublished, so I can't tell you a lot more right now, but I assure you there are stone holes on the "empty" section as you put it. The last geophys survey was about 10yrs ago and I believe this is the very first time we have gotten in so close.
sonofherne 1 year ago
@sonofherne Just going on maps of sarsen distributions -- but this is difficult territory. And of course the absence of sarsens in a locality might mean they weren't there in the first place (Chris Green), or alternatively that they have all been collected up (Kellaway). No way of knowing. I'll be interested to see the evidence re more stone holes when it's published....
plasingli 1 year ago
@plasingli Why is this such a problem for you? It's happen at many circles, some now totally missing. It's even in the records that an early antiquarian lamented that every visit stones were missing. Ask the highways agency. Much of the road has broken sarsen. A house nearby has a bluestone mantlepiece above their fire. If you were local, would you go 20 miles for building material or would you take stone for free which is right under your nose. Not saying its right,but that was what they did.
sonofherne 1 year ago
@sonofherne Sorry -- what's a problem? The breaking up of stones? I'm not disputing that it happened -- there is plenty of documented evidence that it did. But 70 or so large stones smashed to pieces and carted off, without trace? Hmmm.... I'm just trying to get away from speculations and fantasy and back to hard evidence. Show me some hard evidence that there were 80 bluestones and 80 sarsens on the site, and I'll believe you.
plasingli 1 year ago
@sonofherne You say "If you were local, would you go 20 miles for building material or would you take stone for free which is right under your nose. Not saying its right,but that was what they did." Precisely my point -- that's why the builders of Stonehenge used the stones that were readily to hand -- why would they go 200 miles to Mynydd Preseli to collect a vast assortment of stones of all shapes and sizes, including a great deal of "rubbish stone" including soft ashes and flaky sandstones?
plasingli 1 year ago
@plasingli I agree, with reservations. We seem to be switching between sarsen & bluestones, which are we talking about? Bluestones. There are various tufts, sizes & shapes, agree. Not the best of the lot by any means. If they had gone that far to source & mine bluestone they would surely pick the best, not the average & from all over Pembrokeshire. But there's a problem. We are now fairly sure the bluestones were already in several formations BEFORE where they are now, taken out & refixed.
sonofherne 1 year ago
@sonofherne Interesting debate, Sonofherne! And thanks for your constructive comments -- much appreciated. Yes, the bluestones are a pretty mottley collection -- if you look at the geology of the orthostats and the fragments from the Stonehenge environs, we are up to 24 different sources, and going up...... but why is it a problem if bluestones were used and re-used throughout the area? No problem as far as I am concerned! That's exactly what would happen with a scatter of erratics...
plasingli 1 year ago
I was using this to illustrate the idea that the mismatched shapes at the henge might be because they had been used in other circles beforehand and not necessarily from just being random erratics. Either way, it's a very interesting debate as you say, which is why I like Aubrey Burl's work - an archaeologist who isn't afraid to be controversial. He did favour human transport but went out on a limb & now favours the glacial idea like yourself. I have to say, I'm liking the idea more & more.
sonofherne 1 year ago
Some of the bluestones have tooling work. We even have a couple of bluestone lintels & ones which have eroded tenons. One of the largest has a groove which would appear to connect with a bluestone (reburied when excavated) There's evidence of at least 2 bluestone structures in the landscape, West Amesbury & Fargo, plus random bluestone chips elsewhere at Woodhenge,Coneybury. I'm wandering why Stanton Drew didn't use bluestone if they were so randomly distributed. It's much nearer the estuary
sonofherne 1 year ago
@sonofherne Yes, familiar with all of that. if they wanted to carve, shape and bash the stones they had in their collection, that's fine by me. I too have wondered about Stanton Drew -- Kellaway thought that the stones used there were erratics, but from a different stream of ice with a northerly component in it. I think I agree with him.
plasingli 1 year ago