BS: Second stone circle found at Stonehenge

Subject: BS: Second stone circle found at Stonehenge
From: Wesley S
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 12:38 PM

CNN Story

Stone circle suggests Stonehenge part of burial complex

(CNN) -- Stonehenge, an enigma to visitors and scientists alike for so many years, became less of a mystery after a discovery announced to the world this week.


A stone circle discovered near Stonehenge may suggest the prehistoric monument was part of a funeral route.

Archaeologists have unearthed a new stone circle near Stonehenge that lends credence to the theory that the famous prehistoric monument in Britain was part of a funeral complex.

University of Bristol archaeologist Joshua Pollard described the new find as "incredible" because it establishes Stonehenge as part of a larger ceremonial complex linked to the nearby River Avon.

"No one could have predicted there was another stone circle so close by," said Pollard, co-director of the excavation project that began in 2004.

This, he said, changes the perception of the popular tourist destination 90 miles west of London.

The new find, dubbed "Bluestonehenge" after the color of the 25 Welsh stones of which it was once composed, sits along the Avon a mile away from its famous sister circle, Pollard said.

Subject: RE: BS: Second stone circle found at Stonehenge
From: mouldy
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 01:04 PM

Yes, I heard about this on the radio news the other day. I haven't followed it up as yet, though. I really must have a proper look at the story!

Andrea

Subject: RE: BS: Second stone circle found at Stonehenge
From: MAG
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 01:43 PM

This is very very interesting -- I just finished Hill's book on Stonehenge, which summarizes all the theories and views and excavations over the years (with lots of pain over its poor handling over the years). copyright 2008 and already out of date!

The archaeologist must be totally gaga over this one.

Me too, actually. As a student I hitched around
europe for awhile and still regret not stopping to see it when you could still walk into it.

Subject: RE: BS: Second stone circle found at Stonehenge
From: gnu
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 02:10 PM

Hmmm... unearthed? Why was it buried? Could it be that the humans who built it left it unattended whilst soil built up around it? If so, why?

The thought plickens.

Subject: RE: BS: Second stone circle found at Stonehenge
From: Penny S.
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 03:49 PM

Sounds like the whole area, with Durrington Walls and Woodhenge involved a vast amount of work.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Second stone circle found at Stonehenge
From: Penny S.
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 03:50 PM

And gnu, it would have been holes that they unearthed - it seems the stones became part of Stonehenge.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Second stone circle found at Stonehenge
From: frogprince
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 04:45 PM

Archeolgists have uncovered ancient holes that once had stones in them, Penny????

Subject: RE: BS: Second stone circle found at Stonehenge
From: Wesley S
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 05:05 PM

Is there a way to figure out how old a hole is? And how old does a hole have to be before it's ancient?

Subject: RE: BS: Second stone circle found at Stonehenge
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 06:20 PM

"There's always a hole in theories somewhere if you look close enough."
   Mark Twain

Subject: RE: BS: Second stone circle found at Stonehenge
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 07 Oct 09 - 07:15 PM

They in part date a hole by analysis of the earth or rubble that filled the hole. I assume carbon dating would be part of that.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Second stone circle found at Stonehenge
From: gnu
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 05:57 AM

"Archaeologists have unearthed a new stone circle near Stonehenge..."

???

Subject: RE: BS: Second stone circle found at Stonehenge
From: MMario
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 09:27 AM

reading the article; it turns out there is not actually another stone circle, just the evidence that it **WAS** there; and apparently the stones that comprised it were moved to Stonehenge itself approx 2500 BC. Or so the article says.

Subject: RE: BS: Second stone circle found at Stonehenge
From: Mr Happy
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 09:30 AM

test

Subject: RE: BS: Second stone circle found at Stonehenge
From: Anglo
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 11:08 AM

As I recall, there are a lot of holes in Blackburn, Lancashire.



(I'll get my coat.)

Subject: RE: BS: Second stone circle found at Stonehenge
From: An Buachaill Caol Dubh
Date: 09 Oct 09 - 10:53 AM

These boys have little to do with their time.

Subject: RE: BS: Second stone circle found at Stonehenge
From: MAG
Date: 09 Oct 09 - 02:57 PM

Which boys? I find this stuff fascinating.

We, the human species, are endlessly interesting, from what other cultures have done and thought, to whatever is out relationship to our closest relatives, the primates.

Save the bonobos!!. oops, thread creep --

Subject: RE: BS: Second stone circle found at Stonehenge
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Oct 09 - 03:59 PM

I didn't know Stonehenge was an enima! Mind you, it started much earlier when Moses took the stone tablets I suppose...

On a more (semi)serious note. Anyone ever read Bernard Cornwell's (he of 'Sharpe' fame), 'Stonehenge'. As good a bit of 'faction' as you will read and some of the ideas it gives on the building and purpose of Stonehenge are as good as some of the academic studies. In my opinion anyway!

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Second stone circle found at Stonehenge
From: gnu
Date: 09 Oct 09 - 04:11 PM

So... they found "holes"...

ala "The new find, dubbed "Bluestonehenge" after the color of the 25 Welsh stones of which it was once composed,..."

So, if they found "holes" how do they know the Welsh put them there? How do they know the stones that were in the holes were blue? and Welsh? And, where are the stones now?

I have heard of the legend of Blue Balls and I don't believe that either.

What am I missing here? Is there sommat I don't know about the Welsh?

BTW, recently, I discovered that my family may be originally Welsh. Would that explain my blue, ahhh, demeanour?

Subject: RE: BS: Second stone circle found at Stonehenge
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 09 Oct 09 - 06:53 PM

Gnu had three questions which deserve to be dealt with:

1. So, if they found "holes" how do they know the Welsh put them there?

2. How do they know the stones that were in the holes were blue? and Welsh?

3. And, where are the stones now?

All of these, of course, are "answered", if at all, by inferences drawn. And I can only guess what the archaeologists have done and thought, but here are my best guesses:

1. They have previously, as I understand it, concluded that Stonehenge itself is of Welsh origin (on bases which I disremember, other than the origin of the stone). They have, I know from previous reading in Smithsonian Magazine, done a lot of radioactive carbon analysis of remains of wood and charcoal at Stonehenge, leading to estimates of time of construction, enlargement, and use. They will of course have done similar studies at Bluestonehenge, arriving at their dating of that site. They know a good deal about ancient trade and religious routes at relevant times, and as I recall they have figured out the route by which the stones were brought to the Stonehenge site. They would take the two sites' proximity to Wales into account, along with whatever they know about culture, politics, and trade in Wales at those times. And I am confident there are a lot of other considerations I don't know of or have forgotten.

2. Stonehenge was built of a particular igneous stone called--you guessed it--bluestone, from a deposit which, as I remember, is in Wales. As I think I recall reading, this particular stone is ONLY found at that site, at least within any remotely feasible distance. Bluestone is so called, I recall, because when wet it is, yes, bluish. Despite the emptiness of the holes, there would be stone debris, rubble from broken pillars, chips from final shaping, etc., which would establish the building material there. And the chemical nature of the "new" site's stone chips could be definitively shown as identical with that at the quarry site and at Stonehenge.

3. Since the bluestone was eventually removed from this "new" older site, it was clearly taken somewhere. Back to the quarry, over a hundred miles away through mountainous terrain, as I recall? No way, Jay. Just up the road to Stonehenge is the best guess. Stonehenge was originally built with posts of wood according to Smithsonian, and was later (how much later, I have no recollection) improved or developed, at least partly with the stones from the older site just discovered. At least that seems the best inference to draw.

Yes, there's a lot of guesswork in all this, but that's the nature of archeology.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Second stone circle found at Stonehenge
From: MAG
Date: 09 Oct 09 - 07:53 PM

Um, I don't want to be a pedant here, but --

OK, I am being a pedant.

Stonehenge has 2 kinds of stones: the bluestone; only source Wales; and the outer circle of Sarsen stone, a very hard sandstone available not far away.

The older site with wooden post holes is Woodhenge, not far away.

If it didn't come up in the article, Stonehenge is NOT druidic in origin; it is much older, common wisdom to the contrary. People assumed it was for a longtime, until relatively modern analysis showed it to be much, much older.

This all from the recent book I read summarizing Stonehenge until quite recently.

One other theory I heard on a documentary, and probably still theoretical, is that Salisbury Plain is a central spot for many foot traffic routes from all over the isles. i.e., a meting place of some kind.

not only pre Anglo-Saxon invasion, but possibly pre-Briton as well.

End of soapbox.

Subject: RE: BS: Second stone circle found at Stonehenge
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 12:04 PM

Good points well put MAG

L in C

Subject: RE: BS: Second stone circle found at Stonehenge
From: MAG
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 12:55 PM

You're right about the (once filled in and now excavated)holes at Stonehenge, Dave; I hope I didn't mean to give a worng impression.

Subject: RE: BS: Second stone circle found at Stonehenge
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 05:27 PM

The "Bluestones" at Stonehenge came from the Preseli Mountains in Pembrokeshire. This is a fact, the stone at Stonehenge and at Preseli has been tested forensically.
Preseli and Stonehenge are about 182 miles apart if you use the motorway and main roads.
It is thought they must have been floated on rafts from Pembrokeshire up the Bristol Channel into the River Avon and dragged from there to Stonehenge.

Subject: RE: BS: Second stone circle found at Stonehenge
From: BusyBee Paul
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 06:12 PM

DeG, yes, Bernard Cornwell's book is excellent. I'd recommend it to anyone interested in what might ba ethe story of Stonehenge over the ages. Very readable.

Deirdre

Subject: RE: BS: Second stone circle found at Stonehenge
From: BusyBee Paul
Date: 10 Oct 09 - 06:14 PM

Ooops, computer glitch - should read "might be interested in the story".

Dunno what happened there - maybe too much gin!