Stonehenge archaeologists have been digging in the wrong place!

I can't believe this hasn't been posted yet and if it has, my apologies. I searched the subject on here and google to be sure.

Stonehenge archaeologists have been digging in the wrong place!!!! OOPS! lol

New research suggests archaeologists have been searching for the last 90 years in the wrong place.

The rocks may have originated from another hill, just a mile away says Dr. Bevins.

Dr Bevins's team are able to say so categorically that they have discovered the source of the spotted dolerites thanks to a range of laser mass spectrometry techniques which analyse both the chemical composition of the rock and the microbiology present when it was formed.

He says that the chance of them having originated anywhere other than Carn Goedog is "statistically-speaking, infinitesimally small".

And while he is the first to admit that this discovery on its own gets us no closer to solving the riddle, he believes a definitive answer will come eventually.

"I've been studying the bluestones for over 30 years now, and I'm no closer to finding an answer which convinces me either way. But the one thing which I am increasingly sure of is that each piece of the puzzle we find brings us another step closer to the truth.

What does ATS think about this news??

io9.com...

Not sure, but maybe because it was rebuild back in 1901?



You can read the entire article here:
Stonehenge Rebuilt

reply to post by kloejen


Seriously, it was rebuilt? It's like a facsimile of the "real" Stonehenge? Just one word describes this disturbing news:

Rocks


P.S. can you summarize the history and the article, I couldn't stay on the link, dozens of ads were starting to pop up.

kloejen
Not sure, but maybe because it was rebuild back in 1901?

You can read the entire article here:
Stonehenge Rebuild

This pic came from the link you posted. This rig is a 21st century rig. What gives? They rebuild it again recently?

reply to post by Aleister


Yeah, that was the problem I ran into when I clicked on the link. It started a commercial, my dog started barking and I jumped. lol Needless to say I clicked off of it before I could read it.

I am curious to know though what it says??

reply to post by Bilk22


Jeez, as long as they're dragging all that stuff about, who do I ask to break me off a piece? thanks

(rocks)

Don't get any of the annoying ads or popups. I'm using firefox with adblock - end of ads. (just remember to turn it off when visiting ATS, since it violates T&C)

I just grabbed the most telling picture in the article, which is actually a mistake, sorry about that.

This photo below supposedly shows workers on the site back in 1901.

This picture shows workers on the site in 1901 in a restoration which caused outrage at the time but which is rarely referred to in official guidebooks. For it means that Stonehenge, jewel in the crown of Britain's heritage industry, is not all it seems. Much of what the ancient site's millions of visitors see in fact dates back less than 50 years.

There is also something about it on Wiki:

William Gowland oversaw the first major restoration of the monument in 1901 which involved the straightening and concrete setting of sarsen stone number 56 which was in danger of falling. In straightening the stone he moved it about half a metre from its original position.[47] Gowland also took the opportunity to further excavate the monument in what was the most scientific dig to date, revealing more about the erection of the stones than the previous 100 years of work had done. During the 1920 restoration William Hawley, who had excavated nearby Old Sarum, excavated the base of six stones and the outer ditch. He also located a bottle of port in the Slaughter Stone socket left by Cunnington, helped to rediscover Aubrey's pits inside the bank and located the concentric circular holes outside the Sarsen Circle called the Y and Z Holes.[48]

source

If you still want me to repost the entire article here, let me know

reply to post by kloejen


thanks, sets my mind at ease. So these were the original stones, and they just moved them around a bit and patched some stuff up with cement. Not the disaster I thought this was, as long as they promise no new stones were used or changed around based on whims and strong drink.

kloejen
Not sure, but maybe because it was rebuild back in 1901?

You can read the entire article here:
Stonehenge Rebuilt

edit on 21/11/2013 by kloejen because: (no reason given)

Well, well, well, this has all sorts of ramifications.
Wow

Aleister
reply to post by Bilk22

 

Jeez, as long as they're dragging all that stuff about, who do I ask to break me off a piece? thanks

(rocks)

I have to agree that once they mess with it, it's just a pile of rocks, hey?

kloejen
Don't get any of the annoying ads or popups. I'm using firefox with adblock - end of ads. (just remember to turn it off when visiting ATS, since it violates T&C)

I just grabbed the most telling picture in the article, which is actually a mistake, sorry about that.

This photo below supposedly shows workers on the site back in 1901.

This picture shows workers on the site in 1901 in a restoration which caused outrage at the time but which is rarely referred to in official guidebooks. For it means that Stonehenge, jewel in the crown of Britain's heritage industry, is not all it seems. Much of what the ancient site's millions of visitors see in fact dates back less than 50 years.

There is also something about it on Wiki:

William Gowland oversaw the first major restoration of the monument in 1901 which involved the straightening and concrete setting of sarsen stone number 56 which was in danger of falling. In straightening the stone he moved it about half a metre from its original position.[47] Gowland also took the opportunity to further excavate the monument in what was the most scientific dig to date, revealing more about the erection of the stones than the previous 100 years of work had done. During the 1920 restoration William Hawley, who had excavated nearby Old Sarum, excavated the base of six stones and the outer ditch. He also located a bottle of port in the Slaughter Stone socket left by Cunnington, helped to rediscover Aubrey's pits inside the bank and located the concentric circular holes outside the Sarsen Circle called the Y and Z Holes.[48]

source

If you still want me to repost the entire article here, let me know

edit on 21/11/2013 by kloejen because: (no reason given)

Your original pic was OK. It was early turn of the century. The pic I posted from the article is in no way over 100yrs old. The rig is contemporary.

reply to post by Bilk22


According to the article i posted, it was "just a pile of rocks", before the restoration.

This photo is supposedly from before the restoration. I cannot confirm if true or not.



Hopefully someone have more "ancient" photos ?

Ohh, i found some old postcards
Old Stonehenge postcards

Thousands of years of settling, weathering, and stone pilfering left the once orderly Stonehenge complex in substantial disarray. What we see now is the result of several restoration projects carried out between 1901 and 1964 to stabilize leaning uprights and replace fallen stones

science.nationalgeographic.com...#/stonehenge-restoration_24768_600x450.jpg


From 1877

MamaJ

Thousands of years of settling, weathering, and stone pilfering left the once orderly Stonehenge complex in substantial disarray. What we see now is the result of several restoration projects carried out between 1901 and 1964 to stabilize leaning uprights and replace fallen stones

science.nationalgeographic.com...#/stonehenge-restoration_24768_600x450.jpg

From 1877

edit on 21-11-2013 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)

So the whole accuracy thing is thrown out the window as these stones are set by 20th century standards and measures. However I still think the pic I posted from the source is of a much more contemporary rig than 1964.

I knew those stupid idiot liars were telling me something incorrect...

Granted the fact that the stones were moved does damage the integrity of the site, however these stones are not carbon dateable ,the only real archeological value from Stonehenge is going to be from organic material found inside of the mounds or graves in the area of the site or near the site whetherthe stones were quarried, and while it does seem awful that an ancient site did lose a certain degree of integrity it's not necessarily a bad thing, the helicopter glyphs in abydos site would never have been revealed if it weren't for the "accidental damage" that happened at the site.

In related news, those bastard Australians have built their own shiny new one.
Convicts, the lot of them I tell you.

It is a full size replica of the original “Stonehenge” in the UK, as it would have looked around 1950BC.
137 Stones of Esperance Pink Granite quarried adjacent to the Beale’s property, in Esperance, Western Australia. The 10 Trilithon Stones in a horseshoe pattern weigh between 28-50 tonnes each, standing with the 18 tonne lintels to a height of 8 metres. Inside the Trilithon Horseshoe stands another Horseshoe of 19 Blue Stones.

esperancestonehenge.com

reply to post by weirdguy


Amazing! Thanks for sharing this. Didn't know the Aussies have build one of their own.

reply to post by Bilk22


Actually, that isn't a 21st century rig - look on the side, NCK Rapier, which if you look up the history of the company, places it sometime after 1958 after NCK took over Ransomes and Rapier, who built cranes, excavators etc. This fits in nicely with the most recent renovations/rebuilds which took place right up too 1964, so I suspect that particular picture you posted is in fact from that period. Another give away is the phone numbers on the side of the crane- not one includes an area code which was common practice back then.

kloejen
reply to post by weirdguy

 

Amazing! Thanks for sharing this. Didn't know the Aussies have build one of their own.

The Americans have a replica Stonehenge also in Mayhill, Washington State:-

en.wikipedia.org...