Stonehenge: Neolithic monument found near sacred site

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout
a reply to: Freeborn

I think also, because it is based largely on a technological survey without an excavation, it is more technical than most papers are.

Hopefully Hanslune will be back to help translate for us.

Yeah, they did a survey of all that is known about the holes thereby establishing a foundation for further study. They don't have a clue whether they are modern or ancient or what they may have been used for or if they are even part of the same event/time frame. It will be around 8-12 years (if funding is provided) to reach a tentative hypothesis with a final consensus (perhaps) being reached around 2050

a reply to: Hanslune

Shame on me for not taking heed of Kilgore's post!

But thanks tho, I feel a bit validated in my ignorance!

If it wasn't for the solstice alignment I guess Stonehenge w TXould be just more strange monument.

I wonder how many Car Mechanics Workshops in the world also have the front door and workbench in alignment withe the solstice twice a year?!

originally posted by: Doxanoxa
a reply to: Hanslune

Shame on me for not taking heed of Kilgore's post!

But thanks tho, I feel a bit validated in my ignorance!

If it wasn't for the solstice alignment I guess Stonehenge w TXould be just more strange monument.

I wonder how many Car Mechanics Workshops in the world also have the front door and workbench in alignment withe the solstice twice a year?!

Given that there are thousands of moving dots in the sky any line on earth will line up with something in the heavens at some point. The difficulty is determining whether some one intended it and that in some way the ancient intent hasn't been disrupted by tectonic movements, earth subsidence or rising, eccentricity, axial tilt, or precession........

Or reconstruction. The reason the Church never pulled it down is that it was already down at that time.

The Sun is the Sun. Solstice alignments aren't coincidental.

Alignments with stars is a bit dodgy, IMO.

Harte

“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.”

― Nikola Tesla

Mystery of the Henges. No geologist or archaeologist will find the 'answer'. A mathematician might but most likely only those who are also musical geniuses.

a reply to: Doxanoxa

A really good book for getting a little closer the what being human was like back when we were hunting, rather than domesticating, aurochs is Stephen Mithen's After the Ice: A global Human History 20,000-5,000 BC. It's rather a weighty 511 pages but that's because it does go into as much detail as can be gone into without getting mowed down by the minutiae. Mithen makes it accessible by using John Lubbock, a 19th century natural scientist-type and taking him time travelling through the ages, and imagining his observations. It's a really good place to start if you have a curiousity for human prehistory.

a reply to: Hanslune

These things obviously take time, and money. Even if they are, relatively, modern, they are unusual. They say unusual for Britain...do you know of any sites comparable elsewhere in the world? From any period?

Thanks.

originally posted by: Harte
Or reconstruction. The reason the Church never pulled it down is that it was already down at that time.

Well you're not going to go to all the effort of quarrying and transporting stone a considerable distance when there is a perfectly good supply in the middle of your field.

I think much reconstruction, as well as embellishment and out right fraud, accompanied the stone circle renaissance during the rise of antiquarianism in the late 17th and 18th centuries.

a reply to: teapot


Is there any evidence Stonehenge was taken down and the rebuilt?

a reply to: teapot

More recently, Professor Leithwaite of Imperial College did some very interesting work in the area of frequency etc.

originally posted by: Doxanoxa
a reply to: teapot


Is there any evidence Stonehenge was taken down and the rebuilt?

It was rebuilt/reassembled/repaired in the 50's to what was thought to be the original configuration

ru.fishki.net...

ru.fishki.net...

ru.fishki.net...

ru.fishki.net...

A few odd people have tried to insist it was actually BUILT then but of course its existence is well established in history.

upload.wikimedia.org... 1825

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout
a reply to: Hanslune

These things obviously take time, and money. Even if they are, relatively, modern, they are unusual. They say unusual for Britain...do you know of any sites comparable elsewhere in the world? From any period?

Thanks.

Dolmens of North Caucasus in Russia.
Drombeg stone circle in Ireland.
Rujm el-Hiri in Israel.
Carnac Stones in France.
Taulas of Menorca, Spain.
Rollright Stones in England.

Did you mean the stones or the recently discovered holes or the British military being near the site?

I would suspect that large amounts of material were stored in this area during WWII, some of the pits may have been associated with the storage of ordnance or other supplies.

originally posted by: Hanslune
Dolmens of North Caucasus in Russia.
Drombeg stone circle in Ireland.
Rujm el-Hiri in Israel.
Carnac Stones in France.
Taulas of Menorca, Spain.
Rollright Stones in England.

Did you mean the stones or the recently discovered holes or the British military being near the site?

I'm sorry, am I going too fast for you? I was referring to the paragraph from the paper about the pits that I quoted in an earlier post (which is the first paragraph of the Discussion of said paper), where they state that it is difficult to compare it to other sites in the UK, though they do attempt to draw parallels with a number that share some similarities. Is that clearer?

originally posted by: Hanslune
I would suspect that large amounts of material were stored in this area during WWII, some of the pits may have been associated with the storage of ordnance or other supplies.

You'd have thought that someone would have known about it if they did, and why would one of the military units cooperate with a survey on their base if they knew what it was. And that wouldn't really account for those surveyed in 1916, would it, or do you think that they used the same pits in the first war too?

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout

originally posted by: Hanslune
Dolmens of North Caucasus in Russia.
Drombeg stone circle in Ireland.
Rujm el-Hiri in Israel.
Carnac Stones in France.
Taulas of Menorca, Spain.
Rollright Stones in England.

Did you mean the stones or the recently discovered holes or the British military being near the site?

I'm sorry, am I going too fast for you? I was referring to the paragraph from the paper about the pits that I quoted in an earlier post (which is the first paragraph of the Discussion of said paper), where they state that it is difficult to compare it to other sites in the UK, though they do attempt to draw parallels with a number that share some similarities. Is that clearer?

You weren't going fast at all. In fact, you simply asked a question and had it answered.
Now that you don't like the answer, suddenly you were "referring" to something else.

Harte

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout

I'm sorry, am I going too fast for you?

No I think I understand you perfectly well

a reply to: Harte

Yes Harte yet another poser added to pile, lol

a reply to: Hanslune

I piulled this pic from a discussion group about Stonehenge. www.metabunk.org...

All in all I was shocked.

However, prior to 'restoration' I suspect a regular Joe Blow like me wouldnt see much difference.

Avebury was put back up in the 1930's, so I figure the magic is in the stones.

So , I'll be keeping the faith - though in what I'm only sure I dont kmow.

a reply to: Doxanoxa

There was some restoration work in the 1950's-1960's but I do not think the Henge was knocked down. More fell into disuse and nature and gravity doing their thing. To be fair, I'm not sure if there is any definitive evidence. The build materials being so large, Stone Henge was not scavenged in the same way as the virtual free for all when the monasteries were demolished 500 years ago.

Through the restoration work it was not clear where some of the stones had originally been sited and one or two were left where they fell.

blog.english-heritage.org.uk...

From around 1800:



Harte

originally posted by: Harte

You weren't going fast at all. In fact, you simply asked a question and had it answered.

I will definately concede that I asked a simple question, but Hanslune, I don't know, he either misunderstood the question or read an entirely different paper to the one that I linked to and read.

My original post (regarding the paper):

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout
Here's a link to the paper if anyone is interested, intarch.ac.uk...

It's quite technical so I am not entirely confident of what I understand but it does appear to be an important find, and the analysis seems to point to them being unusual for Britain.

Given the presumed later Neolithic date for the pit group, the size of the features, and the scale at which the circuit of pits has been implemented, it is difficult to identify directly comparable groups of features within the British Isles. In respect of clustering of large pits, those associated with, generally earlier, flint mines may invite consideration (Field and Barber 1998; Barber et al. 1999; Mercer 1981). In some instances, such as Cissbury hillfort, large pits associated with mining do form linear alignments; presumably following seams of flint within the boundary of the later Iron Age hillfort (Barber et al. 1999, 29). More locally, work by Booth and Stone (1952) and Stone (1958) record the presence of flint mines near Durrington. However, the illustrations provided by Stone demonstrate that these features are significantly narrower at the entrance than those described above (Figure 21). When considered spatially, Stone's features are also unlikely to be directly linked with the arcs of massive pits presented within this article. While it is not impossible that flint extracted from these pits may have been used on an ad hoc basis, the structural arrangement of the pit group around Durrington Walls, and their apparent link to the area of the henge monument, suggest that such a prosaic interpretation is not sufficient as an explanation for these features.

Hanslune subsequently 'summarized' the paper...

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout
a reply to: Freeborn

I think also, because it is based largely on a technological survey without an excavation, it is more technical than most papers are.

Hopefully Hanslune will be back to help translate for us.

Yeah, they did a survey of all that is known about the holes thereby establishing a foundation for further study. They don't have a clue whether they are modern or ancient or what they may have been used for or if they are even part of the same event/time frame. It will be around 8-12 years (if funding is provided) to reach a tentative hypothesis with a final consensus (perhaps) being reached around 2050

To which I asked...

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout
a reply to: Hanslune

These things obviously take time, and money. Even if they are, relatively, modern, they are unusual. They say unusual for Britain...do you know of any sites comparable elsewhere in the world? From any period?

Thanks.

originally posted by: Harte

Now that you don't like the answer, suddenly you were "referring" to something else.

No, I think it is Hanslune that thought I was referring to something else, but you're correct, I didn't like the answer - it had no bearing on either my question or the paper in general. Now, having read the paper a few times I have worked it out for myself and am even more puzzelled by Hanslune's 'answers' and can only assume, as I've already said, that we are reading different papers.