Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ  permalink

Stonehenge (uh-oh!)

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Monday, 1st June 2009

  It's on Channel 4. Apparently the latest excavations mean that we now *know* when, why and by who Stonehenge was built. Presumably they dug up the instruction manual!

  Link to this forum: Stonehenge (uh-oh!)

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Flobblem (U13967960) on Monday, 1st June 2009

  A channel 4 exclusive from the people who brought us the 'pregnant man/womanwithabeard'

  Link to this forum: Stonehenge (uh-oh!)

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Monday, 1st June 2009

  Mon, 01 Jun 2009 20:44 GMT, in reply to Flobblem in message 2
  
  Durrington Henge and Stonehenge were built by the same people. Durrington (which, being made of wood, obviously symbolised life) had a settlement of several thousand. At midwinter, everyone would turn up, shoot pigs for fun (and food), have a feast, then chuck their cremated relatives in the river. They would then process down to Stonehenge, which - being built of stone from the start - symbolised death and was the place of the ancestors.
  
  Allegedly.

  Link to this forum: Stonehenge (uh-oh!)

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Monday, 1st June 2009

  I forgot to watch this - so I didn't miss much it seems.
  
  Has anyone ever suggested about what happened to the missing stones? Theory used to be rampant about the difficulties of getting the stones there from identified (?) sources but as far as I know, no one thinks twice about who made off with the missing ones and how they managed it and what they did with them when they got them whereever. Or have they? I have woeful gaps in my trivia knowledge - and not so trivia either, on reflection.
  
  Regards, P.

  Link to this forum: Stonehenge (uh-oh!)

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by U2133447 (U2133447) on Tuesday, 2nd June 2009

  I liked the way they jettisoned previously "known certainties" with gay abandon I guess if it's that easy to dismiss the work of previous scholars then it doesn't bode well for the longevity of their own theories.
  
  That said what they put forward was a coherent thesis, as to whether its the correct one .......

  Link to this forum: Stonehenge (uh-oh!)

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Tuesday, 2nd June 2009

  Tue, 02 Jun 2009 10:24 GMT, in reply to N E Juanβ„Ά in message 5
  
  How easily on television theories become 'fact'...

  Link to this forum: Stonehenge (uh-oh!)

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Tuesday, 2nd June 2009

  It was considerably better than the recent Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ effort that claimed that Stone henge was a hospital. The way they introduced that programme just made me think of Spinal Tap's introduction to Stone Henge. At least this documentary attempted to challenge the evidence more firmly than Julian Richards. The poor lad appears to be hamstrung by Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ television's editorial policy towards science, rather like some other key talent they have employed.
  
  There has been a growth in the number of theories surrounding the site of Stonehenge since the initial proposals for a Millennium park were made. This resulted in the collation of the findings of the twentieth century excavations, including analysis of much of Richard Atkinson's unpublished 1950s and 60s material and a collection of new radiocarbon dates in 1995. Stonehenge in its Landscape therefore made the stratigraphic sequence of the monuments in the Avon valley more widely available and provided the basis of the all subsequent work. A series of lectures were then delivered to the British Academy in 1996, published in their Proceedings in 1997 and British heritage have sanctioned numerous excavations since that date.
  
  Suggestions that there was a distinction between the landscape of the living and the dead have been around for over a decade. Mike Parker Pearson published the idea of stones representing the dead based on his ethno-archaological experience in Madagascar in 1998. Some theories of the ritual significance of the landscape had divided the living Bronze Age monuments to the southwest of Stonehenge with the dead Neolithic landscape to the north and east of the monument based upon their chronological sequence as was then understood. It was only with the excavations of the last few years that the chronological model for the various monuments has been revised and to some extent reversed so that Durrington Walls is seen as a monument to the living and Stonehenge a symbol of the dead. They have also moved the focus of the monument away from the summer solstice to the winter solstice when the pigs were slaughtered.
  
  Personally I cannot help thinking the presence of significant levels of dental caries amongst the the pigs suggests that they were being fed on malted barley, a by product of brewing.

  Link to this forum: Stonehenge (uh-oh!)

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by Aphelion333 (U14017502) on Thursday, 4th June 2009

  There seems to be an anomoly with the Aubery stones. there number is 56? This does not represent a 12 month solar cycle? Whoever built these monuments were very intelligent; knew about astronomy and were brilliant engineers.
  
  There are 13 zodiac signs from approx 2000 years ago!
  
  How then did these people know there were really thirteen, a very spiritual number?
  
  56 stones - 4 = 52. 52 weeks in year. 12 months solar.
  
  What I am saying is, logically, as witnessed by whoever built these monuments, there should only be 52 Aubery stones?
  
  I think we underestimate our ancestors!
  
  Research the net and wiki and you will see this is correct.
  
  Ancient man might have been primitive but he was not stupid!
  
  
  THEROB
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: Stonehenge (uh-oh!)

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Thursday, 4th June 2009

  Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:56 GMT, in reply to Aphelion333 in message 8
  
  Unless - and I realise I'm expounding wild theories here - the 56 stones weren't supposed to be linked to a 52 week cycle.

  Link to this forum: Stonehenge (uh-oh!)

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by HantsCricketFan (U5158421) on Thursday, 11th June 2009

  I love the way 'experts' become so certain when it comes to the subject of Stonehenge although it should be noted that in the case of both Francis Prior and Mike Parker-Pearson this certainty in their own beliefs is not limited to Stonehenge.
  
  I hate the way that things require a purpose. Both the Eiffel Tower and The Millennium Eye were built 'just because we could'. I always find it interesting that the Mesolithic post pits in the car park which outside of a couple of shell middens in northern scotland are the only Mesolithic 'monuments' in the country yet very rarely get a mention. It is entirely possible that Stone Henge was merely a phased development over time of a VERY early sacred site in much the same way that cathedrals are often built around early cores which are built on even earlier saxon foundations. Perhaps the 'purpose' of Stonehenge was to honour what went before it. I however wouldn't be pretentious enough to claim i'm right and there are no other possible alternatives.

  Link to this forum: Stonehenge (uh-oh!)

  Report message10

Back to top