New Stonehenge Discovery Hailed As 'Most Important In 60 Years'

New Stonehenge Discovery Hailed As 'Most Important In 60 Years'

Archaeologists studying Stonehenge and its environs say they've unearthed the remnants of an untouched, ancient encampment that dates back 6,000 years--a find that could rewrite British prehistory.

“This is the most important discovery at Stonehenge in over 60 years,” Professor Tim Darvill, a Bournemouth University archaeologist and a Stonehenge expert who was not involved in the new discovery, told the Telegraph. And as he told The Huffington Post in an email, the discovery overturns previous theories that "Stonehenge was built in a landscape that was not heavily used before about 3000 B.C."

click link for article..


I always find it amazing on just how little we know about our history and how a seemingly small discovery can have such a major impact.

Intresting it is. So if Abraham died 2018 BC this means that brits are not one of the tribes of Abraham and Britain was inhabited over thousand years before him.

a reply to: dollukka

Hmm, prediction if I may?

Artifacts recovered from the site will have links to early slavic culture/mythology, justifying Russia's war (to Putin) with the EU.

originally posted by: dollukka
Intresting it is. So if Abraham died 2018 BC this means that brits are not one of the tribes of Abraham and Britain was inhabited over thousand years before him.

There's no evidence that Abraham ever lived, so that seems like a safe bet.

a reply to: Tangerine

Yeah this is the 21st century not the 19th were everything in history - plausible or not - was tied to the bible.

I wonder if these new discoveries still support the idea Stonehenge is a calendar type setup.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I'd build a settlement around Stonehenge, if it were in the neighborhood. A good place to keep out of the rain.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm sometimes surprised by Stonehenge and how much we keep finding out. When it seems like the most studied location in the UK, someone shows up and finds something else that's new and novel. In this case, I wonder why it's taken so long to find something that, realistically, must go alongside every major mesolithic monument in the world.

The following reminds me of the Giza workers camps. They found plenty of fish and cattle bones that showed the workers had quite a nourishing, quality diet. The 'feasts' of Stonehenge might also indicate a working class who were well-fed during what amounted to a regional power's major project.

Charcoal dug up from the encampment, a mile and a half from Stonehenge, has been scientifically tested and reveals that it dates from around 4,000BC. The dig has also unearthed evidence of possible structures, but further investigation is needed to see in more detail what these features in the only untouched Mesolithic landscape in the Stonehenge World Heritage Site contain.


There is also evidence of feasting – burnt flints and remains of giant bulls – aurochs – eaten by early hunter gatherers, as well as tools. A natural spring at Blick Mead would have been the attraction for both people and animals. The combination of a water of a constant temperature and a rare algae also produced the only colour-changing stones, which change from brown to pink, found at any archaeological site in the country.

Buckingham Uni link

Merry Christmas to you X

a reply to: Tangerine

When you've been dead for 4000 thousand years, there
will be no evidence that you existed either. And I
doubt if you'll be mentioned in any book at all.
But I never really thought of the brits as one of
the lost tribes any way. And I bet stone henge is
far older than six thousand years.

a reply to: Hanslune

I agree, many foundations of todays scienific theories originate from the early 20th century or before. Scientist of today have a hard time to throw those 'beliefs' found by accomplished and respected predecessors into the bin because of evidence found with todays sofisticated tools and way of thinking.

Even if a scientist has got his tenure such progressive claims can result in losing his/her carreer when going against the general conscencus among his mainstream scientific colleague. This kind of attitude does have a negative effect on the progress of science.

Awesome find


It seems some sites in Egypt, Peru and now there keep on giving/teaching us something new from time to time and is always a real treat.

Happy Holidays

Stay tuned

originally posted by: zatara
a reply to: Hanslune

I agree, many foundations of todays scienific theories originate from the early 20th century or before. Scientist of today have a hard time to throw those 'beliefs' found by accomplished and respected predecessors into the bin because of evidence found with todays sofisticated tools and way of thinking.

None whatsoever - if that was true nothing would have changed and in fact many things have

Even if a scientist has got his tenure such progressive claims can result in losing his/her carreer when going against the general conscencus among his mainstream scientific colleague.

Nonsense; I can name numerous full professors who hold non-consensus ideals - a fringe idol Dr Schoch is doing just fine.

Here are the results of a survey taken from archaeological professionals in 2012 about their support for pre-clovis sites



I can assure you the dissenters have not all been fired!

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: zatara
a reply to: Hanslune

I agree, many foundations of todays scienific theories originate from the early 20th century or before. Scientist of today have a hard time to throw those 'beliefs' found by accomplished and respected predecessors into the bin because of evidence found with todays sofisticated tools and way of thinking.

None whatsoever - if that was true nothing would have changed and in fact many things have

Even if a scientist has got his tenure such progressive claims can result in losing his/her carreer when going against the general conscencus among his mainstream scientific colleague.

Nonsense; I can name numerous full professors who hold non-consensus ideals - a fringe idol Dr Schoch is doing just fine.

Here are the results of a survey taken from archaeological professionals in 2012 about their support for pre-clovis sites

I can assure you the dissenters have not all been fired!

I am surprised at the number who discount meadowcroft. I thought the main point of contention for it was possible contamination by it's proximity to Vitrian an coal deposits. That was ruled out by an independent test if I recall though admittedly am too lazy to chase down a source link to the test. Pennsylvania has other areas which could prove promising like meadowcroft if you follow the river systems / topography of the land north and east toward the Allegheny national forest. East of the susquehanna I would try along pine creek in tioga county or the pocono region just west of the Delaware river. There are decent stone sources in both those regions. I would suggest the lower end if the Susquehanna starting at the top of the Cheasepeake on through what later came under the Susquehannock culture but the amount of development in the area makes the former better choices to find an undisturbed site.

The Monte Verde part of the survey does prove the point that views have changed since Clovis first.

originally posted by: Jarocal



I am surprised at the number who discount meadowcroft. I thought the main point of contention for it was possible contamination by it's proximity to Vitrian an coal deposits. That was ruled out by an independent test if I recall though admittedly am too lazy to chase down a source link to the test. Pennsylvania has other areas which could prove promising like meadowcroft if you follow the river systems / topography of the land north and east toward the Allegheny national forest. East of the susquehanna I would try along pine creek in tioga county or the pocono region just west of the Delaware river. There are decent stone sources in both those regions. I would suggest the lower end if the Susquehanna starting at the top of the Cheasepeake on through what later came under the Susquehannock culture but the amount of development in the area makes the former better choices to find an undisturbed site.

The Monte Verde part of the survey does prove the point that views have changed since Clovis first.

I believe the reluctance towards Meadowcroft is that the head archaeologist has never completed the site report and many hold said head investigator to be a complete ass for doing so.

Even today - or in 2012 only 65% support MV, which I find both amazing and a bit sad too. I'm always amused that the fringe world thinks the world of archaeology is some huge monolithic organization that all agree with one another - they need only go to any conference to be firmly disabused of THAT theory! lol

originally posted by: Hanslune


I believe the reluctance towards Meadowcroft is that the head archaeologist has never completed the site report and many hold said head investigator to be a complete ass for doing so.

I would not be one of the many if the lead felt more investigation was necessary. Personally I would rather be criticized for not making a definitive final report than to report and provide erroneous conclusions that are later castigated as spurious speculations.

Even today - or in 2012 only 65% support MV, which I find both amazing and a bit sad too. I'm always amused that the fringe world thinks the world of archaeology is some huge monolithic organization that all agree with one another - they need only go to any conference to be firmly disabused of THAT theory! lol

I would love to be a fly on the wall at a conference. Unfortunately, I know I am more of an annoying mosquito that would be buzzing in someone's ear...

a reply to: Jarocal

Just go to one you don't need to have any qualifications (for most of them) you just pay up and show up.

The evenings after the panels and presentations are the most interesting as you can get some off the record comments.

a reply to: Hanslune

Debating this is off topic so I won't go there in detail... and won't...

Do not understand me wrong.. I did not say all scientist.

Dr Shoch is an example of one of these scientist not losing their carreer... but he is well aware he should not to go to far with assumptions.

Just one controversial word for you... evolution.

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Jarocal

Just go to one you don't need to have any qualifications (for most of them) you just pay up and show up.

The evenings after the panels and presentations are the most interesting as you can get some off the record comments.

There are some that pop up in my area ut more importantly I realise how difficult it is fir me to keep my big mouth shut. I'm better served using that money to pay for a service like jstor and not offending anyone.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
New Stonehenge Discovery Hailed As 'Most Important In 60 Years'

Archaeologists studying Stonehenge and its environs say they've unearthed the remnants of an untouched, ancient encampment that dates back 6,000 years--a find that could rewrite British prehistory.

“This is the most important discovery at Stonehenge in over 60 years,” Professor Tim Darvill, a Bournemouth University archaeologist and a Stonehenge expert who was not involved in the new discovery, told the Telegraph. And as he told The Huffington Post in an email, the discovery overturns previous theories that "Stonehenge was built in a landscape that was not heavily used before about 3000 B.C."

click link for article..


I always find it amazing on just how little we know about our history and how a seemingly small discovery can have such a major impact.

I'm not sure I quite understand the importance of this. It's not suggesting that the encampment meant Stonehenge was built earlier than understood, but that people lived in the area roughly 1,000 years earlier than previous theories surmised. It's by no means suggesting there wasn't a human population in the UK at that time either.......... so what is the major importance that is being referred to?

It's interesting, I'm not suggesting otherwise, but I'm not quite sure what is being seen as a major impact.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

I always find it amazing on just how little we know about our history and how a seemingly small discovery can have such a major impact.

Why does it amaze you that we don't know everything about something that happened 100's of generations ago before books. Isn't it kinda obvious?