New Theory on Why Stonehenge Was Built

http://news.yahoo.com/theory-why-stonehenge-built-175025432.html

by daegloe • 13 years ago

58 29 13 years ago

news.yahoo.com

beneth• 13 years ago

It doesn't seem like this is a new theory explaining why it was built as much as a theory explaining why there were people in the area to begin with.

richardjordan3• 13 years ago

One of my old Physics teachers was an expert on Stone Henge. Did a lot of original research in the 1980s. From what I recall Stone Henge is actually multiple sites on top of each other, so when someone says "this is what Stone Henge was for" I am skeptical because we're talking an enormous span of time and several re-buildings with no guarantee that all were for the same reason.

This article title is slightly misleading. The migration route of Aurochs theory certainly gives an explanation as to why ancient people gathered in this location. But it doesn't give reason for why the specific structures at Stone Henge were built, as people might assume from the title.

What I recall from my old teacher, and his work, was that you can pretty clearly demonstrate that the structures were there for observing the sun cycles, as was typical of many megalithic monuments - sun & moon cycles. Most of the other claimed observations can be explained away as statistical artifacts. Given the evidence of burial and the fact such observations would have had religious significance I haven't seen much to challenge the existing understanding of the site.

As an aside, I have visited many megalithic sites in the British Isles (many years go). I find them fascinating. One thing that people often remark on is how they're often in the middle of nowhere, but when they were built they were often in clearings in dense forests, but over time as we domesticated animals that would feed on the bark, killing the trees, then eat the new shoots, over many centuries - millennia - we deforested, for example the moors, and the megalithic sites became elegant monuments to a forgotten age, standing proud against a bleak landscape.

simonh• 13 years ago

I'm wondering how you could accurately observe the rising and setting of the sun and moon from inside a forest clearing.

jacquesm• 13 years ago

With the help of a hill?

keithpeter• 13 years ago

"One of my old Physics teachers was an expert on Stone Henge. Did a lot of original research in the 1980s."

Did your teacher publish anything? I'm aware of Alexander and Archie Thom [1], John North [2] and Fred Hoyle [3] as well as the pop science books by Gerald Hawkins.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Thom

[2] http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1999JHAS...30...83R...

[3] http://www.amazon.com/On-Stonehenge-Fred-Hoyle/dp/0716703637

PS: remember that climate in Britain was very different from now and changed a lot during the construction of megalithic sites. Inland Britain was as you say covered with dense forest so river valleys and coastal areas were very important then.

richardjordan3• 13 years ago

I think so ...we're going back nearly 25 years and I only had him for a Megalithic Science general studies course at A-level ...he was one of our physics teachers but not my one actually so my name recall is shaky - Andrew Taylor I think iirc

zamalek• 13 years ago

Jacques dwells on "why it was placed there", not "what it is" ("this is what Stone Henge was for"). The quality of the journalism shouldn't detract from Jacques work.

Take a second read through it and you will see that he isn't attempting to explain it's function, merely it's location.

As for the function, it's clearly used for weaponising distance star gates.

ysapir• 13 years ago

New? The story was already reported a year and a half ago and published last year.

  [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/open-eye-you-never-know-what-you-might-unearth-2365369.html
  [2] http://www.academia.edu/2488263/Vespasians_Camp_Cradle_of_Stonehenge

daegloe• 13 years ago

Resurfacing just in time for the BBC documentary, it appears.

nfg• 13 years ago

> "Researchers think the giant boulders came from a quarry near Marlborough Downs, just 20 miles (32 kilometers) from the iconic site…"

One can't help but smile at the "just" there! Perhaps if the author tried moving them they might have chosen a different word.

TeMPOraL• 13 years ago

Or if the author didn't have a car.

arethuza4• 13 years ago

The bluestones of Stonehenge come from 250 miles away in Wales - either transported by the builders or carried by glaciation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluestone#Bluestone_of_Stonehen...

moomin• 13 years ago

Not saying there isn't good research here, but if your explanation doesn't cover woodhenges, you've got a way to go on "why".

It may help address "where".

huhtenberg• 13 years ago

> the site, which was occupied continuously for 3,000 years

Gives you a pause, doesn't it?

uchi2• 13 years ago

More time has passed between the building of the ancient pyramids and queen Cleopatra, than queen Cleopatra and now.

arethuza4• 13 years ago

I think most people forget that Cleopatra was of Greek ancestry (being a Ptolemy) and a player in the relatively recent classical world.

skore• 13 years ago

The Great Pyramid of Giza was built around 2560–2540 BC, Cleopatra reigned from 51–30 BC.

So - this statement will remain true for another ~446 years.

netcan• 13 years ago

I'm not sur if its me noticing things or the zeitgiest, but ancient history seems to be really interesting right now.

There were people here a long time ago. They were doing stuff. We have no idea what or why. A tiny fraction of their stuff was big and stone and durable enough to last thousands of years and let us know they were there and doing interesting things. But, we don't have any context. It would be like future generations finding a gigantic open pit mine in one place an airport runway in another place and a giant statue of Kim Jong Un and speculating about out society.

BTW, If there where stonehenges & Pyramids from 20k years ago, would they have lasted till now? We tend to assume not much was going on during the paleolithic. If city states trade & large structures existed during those times, would we know about it?

rehashed2• 13 years ago

Stonehenge is clearly the outside of the asylum.

rehashed2• 13 years ago

Some further clarification:

Henges have a ditch with an outer bank. At Stonehenge it is reversed, with a ditch OUTSIDE the bank - effectively making the world around it the structure for which it is named.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henge

New Theory on Why Stonehenge Was Built

Related Stories