OLD MAN WITH A CAMERA
- HOME
- CONTENTS
- PHOTO GALLERY
- COMMENTS /FEEDBACK
- Hong Kong Street Art
- Gravesend, An Indian Princess and Tilbury
- Alcatraz : The Rock
- A Russian Tank in London
- TESTING PAGE
- Hastings Pier
- Postman's Park
- Tolpuddle Martyrs
- Gallery Index
- Gallery Myanmar
- Gallery Ship Canal
- Gallery Zurich
- Gallery San Francisco 01
- Village of Eyam
- John Babbacombe Lee The Man They Couldn't Hang
- Gallery Flatiron Building
- Others Index
- RICE PUDDING AND RADIO
- Romania, Vampires and Whitby
- CITY OF BUCHAREST
- BUCHAREST PARKS
- PELES CASTLE
- BRAN CASTLE
- BRASOV
- WHITBY
- WANCHAI BUILDINGS
- History
- TESTPAGE
- Salem : Witches Beware !
- SALEM ANSWER
- Salem Slide Show
- A Random walk around Toronto Sept 2018
- Stonehenge
- TEST TEST 01
- Sydney : Random Notes
- Freemantle
- PORTMEIRION
- Sydney : Random Notes
- IMAGE FIND PAGE
- PERTH - FLOWER STEALING KANGAROOS AND MORE
- BATH
- KEW GARDENS IN AUTUMN
- PERTH - FLOWER STEALING KANGAROOS AND MORE
- ALCHEMY
- PARIS SIGHTS
- Hobart : explorers, flags, yachts and a zoo!
- Frestonia - A Very British Revolution
- Gallery Template
- SAIGON SIGHTS 01
- EDINBURGH STORIES
- FRESTONIA
- FRESTONIA
STONEHENGE - INTERESTING PILE OF STONES !
|
Introduction Every year, approximately 1 million people visit this site to look at (but no longer touch, except by special arrangement) a pile of stones in, admittedly, quite picturesque surroundings. It has been described as "The most iconic pre-historic structure in the world" In addition, there are countless books, articles, YouTube videos etc etc all focusing on this place. It is rumoured that there is as much written about Stonehenge as Brexit but that may be an exaggeration. |
So..what's the attraction ?
I can only speak for myself, I guess...
The stones have been there approximately 5,000 years and have been examined by geologists, archeologists and historians, both professional and amateur.
It is believed to have taken between 800-1,500 years to go from being just a circular ditch (called a "henge"..hence the name..) to approximately the format we see today.
And..still... with regard to this structure, we do not know absolutely who built it, how they built it and why they built it... all we have is theory and/or guesswork.
So, these magnificent stones look down on us and laugh at our ignorance...as a succession of bearded, rather scruffy men with shovels offer their latest ideas.
For me...that's the attraction..... so..let's join in the speculation !!!
I can only speak for myself, I guess...
The stones have been there approximately 5,000 years and have been examined by geologists, archeologists and historians, both professional and amateur.
It is believed to have taken between 800-1,500 years to go from being just a circular ditch (called a "henge"..hence the name..) to approximately the format we see today.
And..still... with regard to this structure, we do not know absolutely who built it, how they built it and why they built it... all we have is theory and/or guesswork.
So, these magnificent stones look down on us and laugh at our ignorance...as a succession of bearded, rather scruffy men with shovels offer their latest ideas.
For me...that's the attraction..... so..let's join in the speculation !!!
(1) Who built Stonehenge ?
A number of contenders exist...
Let's start with the least likely :
Aliens
Said to have constructed Stonehenge as a kind of landing pad. Admittedly it does look a little like Heathrow Terminal 5 on opening day but still rather unlikely... I mean where's the duty-free shop ?
Merlin (The Wizard most usually associated with King Arthur's court)
Well apart from being most likely a fictitious, if persistent, figure in various writings, he is almost always portrayed as being active, some hundreds, if not thousands of years after the structure was completed.
The Devil
Well... possible I guess but I suspect he was too busy designing the M25 Motorway around London and fixing the USA Election.
Moving on to the slightly more likely suspects :
The Druids
A rather popular theory as these Celtic pagans have somewhat claimed the structure as their own and most people have heard of their approved occupation at the time of each Summer Solstice, an event attracting 20,000 devotees.
Whilst Stonehenge might have been used as a Druid temple at some point, it's construction timeline simply doesn't fit with with Druid history.
Again, they are not believed to have existed at the time the project started and, possibly, even when it finished.
The Welsh
Based on examination of some cremated remains and the origin of some of the stones, it has been proposed that many of the people who built Stonehenge may have come from Western Britain, particularly from Wales. Well the upright stones do look like rugby posts and it must have been a great place to sing...
My Theory
I call this the "Murder on the Orient Express" theory (WARNING : AGATHA CHRISTIE SPOILER ALERT)
In this detective story, the truth of the murder becomes difficult to ascertain because all the suspects did it !
If, as widely believed, the site was under some form of work-in-progress for up to 1,500 years, it is, therefore, impossible to identify the origin and characteristics of any one group and name them as the primary builders or users of the site.
In reality, dominant cultures, tribal origins, technology and religious beliefs would all have been changing dramatically during this period. Thus, one way or another, around 50 consecutive generations of inhabitants might have contributed to what we see today.
Each will have brought different ideas and skills and could well have included all sorts of nationalities. Hence all the confused historians !
************************************************************************************************
(2) What was the purpose of Stonehenge ?
Funnily enough, when I was a kid, I didn't know there was any debate or discussion on this point. I had only heard of the structure in connection with astronomical matters and the alignment of the sun etc but now it seems that this is only one of several possibilities.
1. Astronomical Calendar
The alignment of the sun and the stones at the Solstice has been known for some considerable years and most observers feel that the alignment cannot be a co-incidence.
I am personally a little more skeptical. After all there are a lot of stones, openings and random rocks (and some have been relocated) so the fact that some align in a certain way could still be due to chance.
Recent times have seen continued support for the astronomical calendar idea with increased emphasis on the positioning of the so-named "Aubrey" holes, encircling Stonehenge, originally believed to have held "marker" stones creating a complex calendar, covering both lunar and terrestrial events.
However, the purpose of these 56 "holes" discovered in the 17th century, has been hotly debated and a "calendar" connection is only one of several theories.
Further, the discovery of strong evidence that these "holes" may have contained cremated remains of the elite (see later notes) would seem to partially damage the astronomical calendar theory although both uses could have co-existed I suppose.
2. Burial Ground/ Crematorium/Temple for the Dead
The idea that Stonehenge was primarily associated with death has become the dominant suggestion. This followed the detailed examination of charred human remains, originally found in the 1920's and now dated as being close to the earliest period of the Stonehenge construction.
One interesting interpretation of the findings suggests a two stage history with the first cremations/burials being of notable individuals (meriting headstones and a significant resting place), while later, it is theorised, that the Stonehenge site and surrounding areas became a more general burying ground with the structure becoming what some have called a "Temple for the Dead."
3. Social Gathering
Another theory concerning the use of Stonehenge is that it was a major gathering point for people to come from far and near to feast and communicate.
This is based partly on the fact that a lot of cattle/food remains have been discovered.
Those proposing this idea have extended their conclusions to claim that Stonehenge might have been the most important location in Ancient Britain and that up to 10% of the entire British population might have attended such gatherings
My personal view is that this is a nice idea but based on very limited evidence. Maybe something additional supporting this theory will emerge in later excavations. (I certainly hope that the cremations and the feasting were not connected !!!)
4. Ritual Sacrifice
Given that the site probably had some religious or ceremonial connections and that there seems to be a tendency for drama to be added to all scientific investigations today (just look how the History Channel has become so "dumbed down" ), it is hardly surprising that the dramatic possibility of ritual sacrifices has been proposed.
It is possible, of course, but, from basic internet research this theory also looks to be based on very limited evidence. There are relics from people who may have had a violent death of some kind and there is one skeleton which displays characteristics of someone being killed by a group and then buried in what might be called a prestigious location. For me, this looks not to be enough to be confident such sacrifices took place.
This is despite the designation of one stone as the so-termed "Slaughtering Stone"
Also, rather disappointingly, deposits on the stones looking suspiciously like blood turned out to be mainly the effect of iron in the stones rusting through rainwater, rather than the blood from victims seeping to the surface after many years !!!
5. Place of Healing
There is the possibility that Stonehenge was a renowned place of healing to which sick people might make a pilgrimage.
This is based mainly on the fact that examination of human remains on the site seem to show an higher than expected number with specific illnesses. As further support for this idea, the fact that some "pilgrims" had taken small pieces of the stones (particularly the so-termed 'blue-stones") indicated that the stones might have been seen as having special healing properties.
A couple of closing points on this question of purpose...
As mentioned earlier, it is important to repeat and to note that Stonehenge has been around for a very long time and may have had very different uses at different times. Perhaps even all of the above applications have been experienced on the site.
One interesting comment I read was that, given the tremendous time and effort to construct Stonehenge, it is most likely to have had a spiritual rather than a practical purpose. This does not actually add any certainty to any particular theory but does suggest we should devote more time to thinking about what could have been on our ancestor's mind and less on examining actual physical evidence.
Funnily enough, when I was a kid, I didn't know there was any debate or discussion on this point. I had only heard of the structure in connection with astronomical matters and the alignment of the sun etc but now it seems that this is only one of several possibilities.
1. Astronomical Calendar
The alignment of the sun and the stones at the Solstice has been known for some considerable years and most observers feel that the alignment cannot be a co-incidence.
I am personally a little more skeptical. After all there are a lot of stones, openings and random rocks (and some have been relocated) so the fact that some align in a certain way could still be due to chance.
Recent times have seen continued support for the astronomical calendar idea with increased emphasis on the positioning of the so-named "Aubrey" holes, encircling Stonehenge, originally believed to have held "marker" stones creating a complex calendar, covering both lunar and terrestrial events.
However, the purpose of these 56 "holes" discovered in the 17th century, has been hotly debated and a "calendar" connection is only one of several theories.
Further, the discovery of strong evidence that these "holes" may have contained cremated remains of the elite (see later notes) would seem to partially damage the astronomical calendar theory although both uses could have co-existed I suppose.
2. Burial Ground/ Crematorium/Temple for the Dead
The idea that Stonehenge was primarily associated with death has become the dominant suggestion. This followed the detailed examination of charred human remains, originally found in the 1920's and now dated as being close to the earliest period of the Stonehenge construction.
One interesting interpretation of the findings suggests a two stage history with the first cremations/burials being of notable individuals (meriting headstones and a significant resting place), while later, it is theorised, that the Stonehenge site and surrounding areas became a more general burying ground with the structure becoming what some have called a "Temple for the Dead."
3. Social Gathering
Another theory concerning the use of Stonehenge is that it was a major gathering point for people to come from far and near to feast and communicate.
This is based partly on the fact that a lot of cattle/food remains have been discovered.
Those proposing this idea have extended their conclusions to claim that Stonehenge might have been the most important location in Ancient Britain and that up to 10% of the entire British population might have attended such gatherings
My personal view is that this is a nice idea but based on very limited evidence. Maybe something additional supporting this theory will emerge in later excavations. (I certainly hope that the cremations and the feasting were not connected !!!)
4. Ritual Sacrifice
Given that the site probably had some religious or ceremonial connections and that there seems to be a tendency for drama to be added to all scientific investigations today (just look how the History Channel has become so "dumbed down" ), it is hardly surprising that the dramatic possibility of ritual sacrifices has been proposed.
It is possible, of course, but, from basic internet research this theory also looks to be based on very limited evidence. There are relics from people who may have had a violent death of some kind and there is one skeleton which displays characteristics of someone being killed by a group and then buried in what might be called a prestigious location. For me, this looks not to be enough to be confident such sacrifices took place.
This is despite the designation of one stone as the so-termed "Slaughtering Stone"
Also, rather disappointingly, deposits on the stones looking suspiciously like blood turned out to be mainly the effect of iron in the stones rusting through rainwater, rather than the blood from victims seeping to the surface after many years !!!
5. Place of Healing
There is the possibility that Stonehenge was a renowned place of healing to which sick people might make a pilgrimage.
This is based mainly on the fact that examination of human remains on the site seem to show an higher than expected number with specific illnesses. As further support for this idea, the fact that some "pilgrims" had taken small pieces of the stones (particularly the so-termed 'blue-stones") indicated that the stones might have been seen as having special healing properties.
A couple of closing points on this question of purpose...
As mentioned earlier, it is important to repeat and to note that Stonehenge has been around for a very long time and may have had very different uses at different times. Perhaps even all of the above applications have been experienced on the site.
One interesting comment I read was that, given the tremendous time and effort to construct Stonehenge, it is most likely to have had a spiritual rather than a practical purpose. This does not actually add any certainty to any particular theory but does suggest we should devote more time to thinking about what could have been on our ancestor's mind and less on examining actual physical evidence.
************************************************************************************************
(3) How was it Built ?
As mentioned before, Stonehenge, as we know it in modern times, was under construction for up to about 1,500 years.
Just think about that... 1,500 years !!! .. that's almost as long as my bank keeps me waiting when I ring their laughingly-called "helpline".
So, if there is one word to describe how Stonehenge was built, I would say it is "slowly"
Generally-speaking, it is accepted that Stonehenge was assembled, on site, by man-handling large and varied stones into position.
This impresses me as I still cannot even assemble an IKEA cupboard, without having several pieces left over !
Given a reasonable amount of time and enough fit people, yet to have their bodies screwed up by Fast Food and Chocolate, we can assume that pulling up and locating the stones into position was not too difficult using ramps of built-up earth and ropes. Of course, if they had waited another 1000 years or so until pulleys were invented, they might have found things a bit easier.
Historians are always impressed by the fact that, during this process, they used quite sophisticated "tongue and groove" joints, more normally associated with wooden structures.
Despite the inspiring building work, most of the investigation into the project has been more concerned with the origin of the stones and how they reached the sit
Generally-speaking, the stones can be divided into two groups.
The large standing stones, weighing up to 25 tonnes each, are called " Sarsens" and the smaller stones are called "Bluestones"
What has fascinated "experts" for years (and been the basis of their many "papers', articles, videos and books) has been the fact that all the stones seemed to have been brought some considerable distances at a time when transport systems were limited and the trains were often very late (OK, I made up that last bit in a pathetic attempt to make this blog page topical).
The Sarsen stones are approximately 60 million years old and, by most accounts, are believed to have come from a place called the Malborough Downs, around 20 miles north of the site.
As mentioned before, Stonehenge, as we know it in modern times, was under construction for up to about 1,500 years.
Just think about that... 1,500 years !!! .. that's almost as long as my bank keeps me waiting when I ring their laughingly-called "helpline".
So, if there is one word to describe how Stonehenge was built, I would say it is "slowly"
Generally-speaking, it is accepted that Stonehenge was assembled, on site, by man-handling large and varied stones into position.
This impresses me as I still cannot even assemble an IKEA cupboard, without having several pieces left over !
Given a reasonable amount of time and enough fit people, yet to have their bodies screwed up by Fast Food and Chocolate, we can assume that pulling up and locating the stones into position was not too difficult using ramps of built-up earth and ropes. Of course, if they had waited another 1000 years or so until pulleys were invented, they might have found things a bit easier.
Historians are always impressed by the fact that, during this process, they used quite sophisticated "tongue and groove" joints, more normally associated with wooden structures.
Despite the inspiring building work, most of the investigation into the project has been more concerned with the origin of the stones and how they reached the sit
Generally-speaking, the stones can be divided into two groups.
The large standing stones, weighing up to 25 tonnes each, are called " Sarsens" and the smaller stones are called "Bluestones"
What has fascinated "experts" for years (and been the basis of their many "papers', articles, videos and books) has been the fact that all the stones seemed to have been brought some considerable distances at a time when transport systems were limited and the trains were often very late (OK, I made up that last bit in a pathetic attempt to make this blog page topical).
The Sarsen stones are approximately 60 million years old and, by most accounts, are believed to have come from a place called the Malborough Downs, around 20 miles north of the site.
Although this would have been quite a distance to bring these stones to the Stonehenge site, it is the apparent "journey" of the Bluestones which has exercised the minds of historians and others for many years.
Recently, there has been some debate as the the exact origin of these Bluestones but there seems little doubt that they came from South Wales.
As you can see from the Google Map, alongside this paragraph, Even using modern roads like the A40, it is a 169 mile journey
Unfortunately, our forefathers faced two disadvantages compared with today. Firstly, the A40 did not exist until 1923 and the second problem is that they would have got rather wet trying to cross the Bristol Channel as the Severn Bridge was only completed in 1966. This and carrying 2 tonne rocks would definitely have slowed them down.
Recently, there has been some debate as the the exact origin of these Bluestones but there seems little doubt that they came from South Wales.
As you can see from the Google Map, alongside this paragraph, Even using modern roads like the A40, it is a 169 mile journey
Unfortunately, our forefathers faced two disadvantages compared with today. Firstly, the A40 did not exist until 1923 and the second problem is that they would have got rather wet trying to cross the Bristol Channel as the Severn Bridge was only completed in 1966. This and carrying 2 tonne rocks would definitely have slowed them down.
Well, enough frivolity.... Until recently, the most popular idea was that the stones were transported by the use of lots of people, rollers and then boats.
I have to admit that I have only seen one serious filmed attempt to emulate this transport methodology and that failed miserably when the first boat sank under the weight of the stone.
I believe the same thing happened on another effort to move a stone to Stonehenge as part of the Millennium "celebrations". This also "failed" at the boat section despite the help from cranes and JCB diggers which to the best of my knowledge would have been unavailable 5000 years ago
I have to admit that I have only seen one serious filmed attempt to emulate this transport methodology and that failed miserably when the first boat sank under the weight of the stone.
I believe the same thing happened on another effort to move a stone to Stonehenge as part of the Millennium "celebrations". This also "failed" at the boat section despite the help from cranes and JCB diggers which to the best of my knowledge would have been unavailable 5000 years ago
So, as doubts arose as to the transport of these rocks by human hand, a new theory came along:
This was that the rocks were moved by glacial activity rather than by pre-historic fitness fanatics
This theory was discussed more than 100 years ago but (to use a modern buzz-word and so I don't completely waste my MBA) the idea failed to "gain traction."
However, it has begun to attract followers in the last 3-5 years as each attempt to produce a credible man-made solution fails to convince.
Improved computer-modelling of probable ice movement, the discovery that the Bluestone rocks may have originated from a widespread area rather than a single spot and other instances world-wide of glaciers moving rocks along a specific "trail" have all been offered to support this idea.
But there are still many experts who feel that this Stonehenge glacier theory, like so many before is nothing but an idea in a series of ideas. They also go so far to say that the theory is an insult to our heroic and over-achieving ancestors. I would have thought that letting the glaciers do the hard work would rather show the human race to have been quite smart !
On this point, it seems sensible to end this review of the construction and use of Stonehenge where it began... we know almost nothing for sure and it looks like remaining a talking point and mystery for some years to come, maybe for ever.
This was that the rocks were moved by glacial activity rather than by pre-historic fitness fanatics
This theory was discussed more than 100 years ago but (to use a modern buzz-word and so I don't completely waste my MBA) the idea failed to "gain traction."
However, it has begun to attract followers in the last 3-5 years as each attempt to produce a credible man-made solution fails to convince.
Improved computer-modelling of probable ice movement, the discovery that the Bluestone rocks may have originated from a widespread area rather than a single spot and other instances world-wide of glaciers moving rocks along a specific "trail" have all been offered to support this idea.
But there are still many experts who feel that this Stonehenge glacier theory, like so many before is nothing but an idea in a series of ideas. They also go so far to say that the theory is an insult to our heroic and over-achieving ancestors. I would have thought that letting the glaciers do the hard work would rather show the human race to have been quite smart !
On this point, it seems sensible to end this review of the construction and use of Stonehenge where it began... we know almost nothing for sure and it looks like remaining a talking point and mystery for some years to come, maybe for ever.
************************************************************************************************
(4) Finally : Is Stonehenge a Fake ?
Where there is a mystery about an event or object, then you can be sure that there will be conspiracy theories suggesting all is not what it seems
Stonehenge is no exception
Appearing in different forms, the most often mentioned speculation is that what we are seeing today is not a 5,000 year-old structure but something constructed less than 100 years ago. Photographic evidence is claimed and, indeed, published on the internet.
Therefore, as with most good conspiracy theories, we, the public, are being fooled by "The Authorities"
So, is it true ?
Well.. Yes and No..
With regard to the age of Stonehenge, there is far too much evidence, including carbon dating results, 15th century sketches, paintings, writings etc referring to Stonehenge long before the alleged new construction date.
Where there is a mystery about an event or object, then you can be sure that there will be conspiracy theories suggesting all is not what it seems
Stonehenge is no exception
Appearing in different forms, the most often mentioned speculation is that what we are seeing today is not a 5,000 year-old structure but something constructed less than 100 years ago. Photographic evidence is claimed and, indeed, published on the internet.
Therefore, as with most good conspiracy theories, we, the public, are being fooled by "The Authorities"
So, is it true ?
Well.. Yes and No..
With regard to the age of Stonehenge, there is far too much evidence, including carbon dating results, 15th century sketches, paintings, writings etc referring to Stonehenge long before the alleged new construction date.
So, don't worry, you are looking at something very old indeed.
However, there is a mini-conspiracy in that what you are seeing has some "fake" parts and may not be in the original stone formation.
This is because the site has been "renovated" on at least 3 occasions and, until recently, this was very rarely mentioned in tourist documentation and guidebooks. However, it was not really a "top secret" affair as the work was well documented (hence the pictures allegedly showing that the "construction" of Stonehenge was only in recent times) at the time. Also you can see, in plain sight, at least one stone with its modern concrete centre, where no effort has been to disguise the renovation.
Now a summary of the work is in the official guidebook, which I obtained this summer so, if it could be termed a deception, it was a modest one.
However, there is a mini-conspiracy in that what you are seeing has some "fake" parts and may not be in the original stone formation.
This is because the site has been "renovated" on at least 3 occasions and, until recently, this was very rarely mentioned in tourist documentation and guidebooks. However, it was not really a "top secret" affair as the work was well documented (hence the pictures allegedly showing that the "construction" of Stonehenge was only in recent times) at the time. Also you can see, in plain sight, at least one stone with its modern concrete centre, where no effort has been to disguise the renovation.
Now a summary of the work is in the official guidebook, which I obtained this summer so, if it could be termed a deception, it was a modest one.
The work was done in 1901, 1919 and 1958 and was thought necessary because some large stones were leaning over or had even completely fallen to the ground.
The photographs seem to indicate that quite considerable fixing and rebuilding work was conducted
Therefore a small minority of writers have suggested that the amount of restoring and the alleged re-positioning of some stones in new locations mean that the present structure should be regarded as a "re-creation" rather than an authentic piece of pre-history.
This seems a little extreme. The monument had been neglected for many years and there would surely have been even more criticism if it had simply been left to deteriorate
The photographs seem to indicate that quite considerable fixing and rebuilding work was conducted
Therefore a small minority of writers have suggested that the amount of restoring and the alleged re-positioning of some stones in new locations mean that the present structure should be regarded as a "re-creation" rather than an authentic piece of pre-history.
This seems a little extreme. The monument had been neglected for many years and there would surely have been even more criticism if it had simply been left to deteriorate
(5) Concluding Remarks
Stonehenge is a pleasant and peaceful place to visit (go early morning to avoid having to duck and weave around the selfie sticks.)
Unlike some writers and photographers, I have no problem in only being able to approach with a few metres of the stones. It is still possible to get photos and it protects the site from unnecessary "wear" and "tear"
Just a word about the nearby beautiful old city of Salisbury. Unfortunately, the locals are suffering a large loss of visitors due to the recent nerve gas affair where, allegedly, a couple of Russians made an attempt on the life of a retired spy.
Obviously, people will be be cautious but it all seems to be over now and it would be a shame to miss out on this attractive and historic place, just a short drive from Stonehenge
Stonehenge is a pleasant and peaceful place to visit (go early morning to avoid having to duck and weave around the selfie sticks.)
Unlike some writers and photographers, I have no problem in only being able to approach with a few metres of the stones. It is still possible to get photos and it protects the site from unnecessary "wear" and "tear"
Just a word about the nearby beautiful old city of Salisbury. Unfortunately, the locals are suffering a large loss of visitors due to the recent nerve gas affair where, allegedly, a couple of Russians made an attempt on the life of a retired spy.
Obviously, people will be be cautious but it all seems to be over now and it would be a shame to miss out on this attractive and historic place, just a short drive from Stonehenge
Proudly powered by Weebly