Early sketch of Stonehenge found

Source:
arts.guardian.co.uk...

They got the date wrong by some 3,000 years, but the oldest detailed drawing of Stonehenge, apparently based on first hand observation, has turned up in a 15th century manuscript.

The little sketch is a bird's eye view of the stones, and shows the great trilithons, the biggest stones in the monument, each made of two pillars capped with a third stone lintel, which stand in a horseshoe in the centre of the circle. Only three are now standing, but the drawing, found in Douai, northern France, suggests that in the 15th century four of the original five survived.

There are two earlier images of Stonehenge, one in the British Library and one in the Parker Library in Cambridge, but the Douai drawing is unique in attempting to show how the monument was built.

Now if someone could find the map to El Dorado were set *

thats really quite odd
the way that it has "Stonehenge" written across it at that date when it wasn't known by that name until later
it should say "Stanenges"
so is this proof of time travel or french fakery
occhams razor anyone

Interesting that this so-called "15th century manuscript" was recorded on lined paper. I guess the lines could show the paper to have come from a ledger or record book of some kind, but that begs the question: Why record information about stonehenge in a ledger?

Even if the paper and ink do prove to be from the time period indicated (and I'm not buying the current evidence to that effect), we'll still have to take it with a grain of salt - the document was discovered in France, 3,000 years after Stonehenge was built, and (if you read the linked article) attributes the building of Stonehenge to Merlin (yeah, the wizard) sometime in the 480's.

It's now known that there were two other prehistoric Henges located nearby...
Straw Henge and Wood Henge, that were blown down by big bad Romans.
But the Henge made of stone remained standing and the three little druids were saved

According to Dard Hunter (Papermaking, The History and Technique of an Ancient Craft), an English patent for a ruling machine was granted in 1770 to John Tetlow. Before then, all paper was ruled by hand.
doesn't look ruled by hand does it
and if it was it begs the question
why would someone rule a piece of paper by hand and then draw on it.
you couldn't pick up blank ledgers at WH Smith in those days and most manuscripts were written by monks who were about the only people who could write..




[edit on 28-11-2006 by Marduk]

Looks fake to me.

The reasons why have already been stated above.

Interesting to say the least.

Good points Marduk, regarding paper/ lines etc. More cons than pros in relation to validity of the paper.

I read the article but did not see where they translated what was written in conjunction with the diagram.

Anyone have any ideas??

Also, was there any mention as to 'who' may have writtened/drawn it in the first place.


( and no, not "Made In England" )

Originally posted by Marduk
doesn't look ruled by hand does it
[edit on 28-11-2006 by Marduk]

Well, yes, to me it does. You can see that the line under the first paragraph, under the picture, is much wider than the others. They used rulers. We would expect perfectly straight lines, just with slightly variant spacings between them. As someone very familiar with medieval lined manuscript (I'm an academic musician specialising in medieval music), trust me - it looks fine. I would be interested in the context of the drawing. Most manuscripts feature doodles, or sketches with nothing to do with the main work in it. Paper was expensive so they used what they could. Or just doodled into liturigcal books when they got bored. This says it is part of a historical bok though, which means it is not a doodle, but a deliberate contextual part of the work, which makes it easier to date, as the date would be the same for the entire work.

And to answer, why would they rule it and then draw on it... you can see the text is on the lines. The work is a puported "history" and so the text is on ruled lines to make it neater. It will be mostly all text. The pic is just squeezed in as needed (the pic may be in a different hand from the main text too, as different scribes may have had different roles in a manuscript - we often find diagrams and non-text items in spaces not quite the right size/shape for them as the text scribe just left what he thought would be the right space for them to be done later).

I am not sure if this is on paper (most likely for the period) or on vellum/parchment. The normal method for dating paper is by watermark, which is a large, but straightforward process, like reading hallmarks on silverwork. This has been dated at 1440. Sounds fine to me; the script style is also correct for the period and provenance.

Someone debated the use of the word" Stonehenge".... well, as spellings were not standardised, and as I doubt any of us on here have the sepcialised knowledge of 1440s Douai French idioms, I doubt if any of us really actually know whether it is anachronistic.

[edit on 28-11-2006 by d60944]

Someone debated the use of the word" Stonehenge".... well, as spellings were not standardised, and as I doubt any of us on here have the sepcialised knowledge of 1440s Douai French idioms, I doubt if any of us really actually know whether it is anachronistic

well unless they were using english words in france in the 1440s which were not even in use in english for another 300 years I think the specialised knowledge of 1440s french is a little superfluous
www.etymonline.com...
at this time in England, Old English was still in general use and the term "Stanhen gist" meaning the 'hanging stones' was applied to the monument.
it wasn't until the yorkshire term "henge" was added to this to make Stan-henge in 1740 that it became known by that name
so it is either a fake or English is totally derived from french and every archaeo linguist has missed it or Platos been busy with his time machine again

but you must realise that the Guardian newspaper is not a recognised authority on anything anyway, especially correct facts
I expect in tomorrows edition they will claim it dates from 1840 and the error was just a typo

I don't know - it's not my field. Is the word on that document perhaps Stonehencg? (Wikipedia suggests that as etymology).

The word "henge" is a variant of "hencg" and according to "Early English Place Name Elements" (by A H Smith, published by the English Place-Name Society, Cambridge University Press, 1956), both were in use in Early English linguistic times. The two forms are stated to be Anglian regional variants of each other.

I don't think the online etymology on your link can be terrtibly well researched. Don't believe everything you find online.

I don't think the online etymology on your link can be terrtibly well researched. Don't believe everything you find online.

you just posted a link to wikipedia and you're telling me that
classic

it quite clearly says stone
www.etymonline.com...
which it shouldn't
www.etymonline.com...
it should be "Stan"

I am trying to locate an instance of the word "stonehenge" being used suiable for 1440. In the meatntime, it is relevant that Simon of Abingdon wrote in the 15th century of it as "Stunehengest" (not as "Stanhenge")

In ay event, if "stan" is the only Old English word ever used, it's not as relevant to a 1440s author, as Old English had disappearred by the middle of the twelfth century.

An online Middle English dictionary gives "stone" as a normal valid form of the word itself, along with many others at this link. It also gives lots of examples of the use fo the word "henge" from before 1440.

You seem to be arguing for the sake of it.

[edit on 29-11-2006 by d60944]