15 replies to this topic

[Maju]

Found at BBC: Dig pinpoints Stonehenge origins.

The new datations obtained place the first stone architecture (phase 3I) some 300 years later tha thought before. The datation is yet to be refined but by the moment yields dates between 2400 and 2200 BCE, while it was before believed that this phase happened c. 2600 BCE.

[Pete G]

and redated again
http://www.timesonli...icle4909050.ece
PeteG

[Maju]

Wow! So the argument is that Aubrey holes were not just postholes but that they actually held stones originally and these do date from c. 3000 BCE. Could these stones be the same that are now at Stonehenge or are there reasons to think otherwise?

[seanachai]

Maju, on 8 October 2008, 19:00, said:

Could these stones be the same that are now at Stonehenge or are there reasons to think otherwise?

"The famous "bluestones" which now form the smallest of the circles may have once stood around its perimeter, centuries earlier."

That quote is from the first paragraph of the article.  So the answer appears to be yes, they could be.

[Pete G]

it would help if one group of archaeologists actualy talked and shared information with another.
With so many different people with different theories poor old Stonehenge is suffering and the public are getting more confused by the day.
There will be more digs next year but that will be it until after the whole site gets a makeover in time for the Olympics in 2012.

The Stonehenge Riverside Project still hasn't published an interim report for 2007.
They have had a year cut from their project so have to finish up in 2009, meanwhile other career archaeologists want to be the Last person to have dug at Stonehenge so there is a scramble for applications to English Heritage for the 2009 season.
PeteG

[kevin.b]

Perhaps stonehenge really is the start of rock and roll?
http://www.yorkshire...rets.4840100.jp
Kevin

[cofu]

kevin.b, on 5 January 2009, 23:49, said:

Perhaps stonehenge really is the start of rock and roll?
http://www.yorkshire...rets.4840100.jp
Kevin

Dynamic model site www.mammoths.narod.ru  prove : the period “iron” sites of the shedule (b1-b11 )
downturn of a level Ocean of ~ 20 m , time (b11-c ) ; the period “bronze” time of a full cycle (f1-a1 )
multiply on  10 ; primitive processing of megalith  of Stonehenge  in comparison with the processed
fragments of pyramid in Egypt a site of the shedule (a1-a ), and that fact ,that DM has allowed to reproduce at last climatic condition in time the  “bronze “period in Northern hemisphere – at all
excludes residing homo sapiens on British isles , hence Stonehenge it has been executed in the
“stone” period , when this period has terminated to define it is possible ; as we see it a question
complex and what  can do participants of forum to solve this problem –will show time

[crackt imagination]

The re-used bluestones of the Circle and 'Horseshoe' retain architectural details that show that some were once small trilithon structures, two bluestone lintels are known. Look at the spacing on the tenon sockets and they don’t fit with any stone holes that relate to the Q and R Holes and certainly not the Aubrey Holes. The Q –R relationships are around 3 times wider than the sockets, and not even the modified ‘portal’ arrangement of the early bluestone structure seems to have anything that would have accommodated them, in fact whatever uprights supported them their bases would have touched, or almost touched. Notice also the wear pattern on the base of the lintel - where it abraded and weathered against one of its support, this was not a transitory event. Whatever structure they belonged to stood for a long time.

So somewhere, either on the present site, or beyond Stonehenge, there was a lintel –topped bluestone structure. The most elegantly worked of all the surviving Stonehenge stones is the bluestone lintel (Stone 36) dug up by Atkinson in 1954, and reburied. Were these stones the inspiration for the iconic sarsen monument?


For anyone interested the bluestone conundrum is presented as a graphic on page 165 of 'Solving Stonehenge' by Anthony Johnson
_

Left: Q & R holes (after Cleal et al. 1995).         Right:  bluestone lintel - Stone 36, showing lintel spacing. Photo RJC Atkinson (ranging pole if 6ft).

Attached Files

•  Q_R.jpg   97.67K   14 downloads
•  B_lintel.jpg   142.61K   16 downloads

[tiompan]

crackt imagination, on 21 March 2009, 17:13, said:

The re-used bluestones of the Circle and 'Horseshoe' retain architectural details that show that some were once small trilithon structures, two bluestone lintels are known. Look at the spacing on the tenon sockets and they don’t fit with any stone holes that relate to the Q and R Holes and certainly not the Aubrey Holes. The Q –R relationships are around 3 times wider than the sockets, and not even the modified ‘portal’ arrangement of the early bluestone structure seems to have anything that would have accommodated them, in fact whatever uprights supported them their bases would have touched, or almost touched. Notice also the wear pattern on the base of the lintel - where it abraded and weathered against one of its support, this was not a transitory event. Whatever structure they belonged to stood for a long time.

So somewhere, either on the present site, or beyond Stonehenge, there was a lintel –topped bluestone structure. The most elegantly worked of all the surviving Stonehenge stones is the bluestone lintel (Stone 36) dug up by Atkinson in 1954, and reburied. Were these stones the inspiration for the iconic sarsen monument?


For anyone interested the bluestone conundrum is presented as a graphic on page 165 of 'Solving Stonehenge' by Anthony Johnson
_

Left: Q & R holes (after Cleal et al. 1995).         Right:  bluestone lintel - Stone 36, showing lintel spacing. Photo RJC Atkinson (ranging pole if 6ft).

It is intriguing and there are suggestions of that possibility being close to Woodhenge where there were some bluestone fragments  found .
What would be good is a blustone with a tenon .If the putative monument was similar in scale then it would be approx one third of height and width of the present trilithons so about 2m high .

George

[Pete G]

The fragments found at Woodhenge and thought to be bluestone turned out not to be according to Dr Rob Ixer who studied them.
PeteG

[crackt imagination]

tiompan, on 22 March 2009, 17:08, said:

crackt imagination, on 21 March 2009, 17:13, said:

The re-used bluestones of the Circle and 'Horseshoe' retain architectural details that show that some were once small trilithon structures, two bluestone lintels are known. Look at the spacing on the tenon sockets and they don’t fit with any stone holes that relate to the Q and R Holes and certainly not the Aubrey Holes. The Q –R relationships are around 3 times wider than the sockets, and not even the modified ‘portal’ arrangement of the early bluestone structure seems to have anything that would have accommodated them, in fact whatever uprights supported them their bases would have touched, or almost touched. Notice also the wear pattern on the base of the lintel - where it abraded and weathered against one of its support, this was not a transitory event. Whatever structure they belonged to stood for a long time.

So somewhere, either on the present site, or beyond Stonehenge, there was a lintel –topped bluestone structure. The most elegantly worked of all the surviving Stonehenge stones is the bluestone lintel (Stone 36) dug up by Atkinson in 1954, and reburied. Were these stones the inspiration for the iconic sarsen monument?


For anyone interested the bluestone conundrum is presented as a graphic on page 165 of 'Solving Stonehenge' by Anthony Johnson
_

Left: Q & R holes (after Cleal et al. 1995).         Right:  bluestone lintel - Stone 36, showing lintel spacing. Photo RJC Atkinson (ranging pole if 6ft).

It is intriguing and there are suggestions of that possibility being close to Woodhenge where there were some bluestone fragments  found .
What would be good is a blustone with a tenon .If the putative monument was similar in scale then it would be approx one third of height and width of the present trilithons so about 2m high .

George

Hi George,

There are bluestones with tenons*, three if I remember right (67, 69 and 70).  They have been used as pillars in the later bluestone 'horseshoe', however they don't appear to 'fit' with either of the bluestone lintels. There have been various suggestions as to where the earlier linteled structure may have stood, ranging from Stonehenge itself, a location near the western end of the Cursus, close to Woodhenge and not to forget West Wales! There is simply not enough evidence to draw any useful conclusions


*To the 'elegant' phase we can also add the grooved bluestone 68, and the stump with a tongue, 66. I think we can guess that the bluestone trilithons and the grooved stones came from the same monument, and that this was a very sophisticated structure.

[crackt imagination]

Pete G, on 22 March 2009, 17:53, said:

The fragments found at Woodhenge and thought to be bluestone turned out not to be according to Dr Rob Ixer who studied them.
PeteG

Thanks for that info Pete.

[tiompan]

crackt imagination, on 23 March 2009, 13:16, said:

tiompan, on 22 March 2009, 17:08, said:

crackt imagination, on 21 March 2009, 17:13, said:

The re-used bluestones of the Circle and 'Horseshoe' retain architectural details that show that some were once small trilithon structures, two bluestone lintels are known. Look at the spacing on the tenon sockets and they don’t fit with any stone holes that relate to the Q and R Holes and certainly not the Aubrey Holes. The Q –R relationships are around 3 times wider than the sockets, and not even the modified ‘portal’ arrangement of the early bluestone structure seems to have anything that would have accommodated them, in fact whatever uprights supported them their bases would have touched, or almost touched. Notice also the wear pattern on the base of the lintel - where it abraded and weathered against one of its support, this was not a transitory event. Whatever structure they belonged to stood for a long time.

So somewhere, either on the present site, or beyond Stonehenge, there was a lintel –topped bluestone structure. The most elegantly worked of all the surviving Stonehenge stones is the bluestone lintel (Stone 36) dug up by Atkinson in 1954, and reburied. Were these stones the inspiration for the iconic sarsen monument?


For anyone interested the bluestone conundrum is presented as a graphic on page 165 of 'Solving Stonehenge' by Anthony Johnson
_

Left: Q & R holes (after Cleal et al. 1995).         Right:  bluestone lintel - Stone 36, showing lintel spacing. Photo RJC Atkinson (ranging pole if 6ft).

It is intriguing and there are suggestions of that possibility being close to Woodhenge where there were some bluestone fragments  found .
What would be good is a blustone with a tenon .If the putative monument was similar in scale then it would be approx one third of height and width of the present trilithons so about 2m high .

George

Hi George,

There are bluestones with tenons*, three if I remember right (67, 69 and 70).  They have been used as pillars in the later bluestone 'horseshoe', however they don't appear to 'fit' with either of the bluestone lintels. There have been various suggestions as to where the earlier linteled structure may have stood, ranging from Stonehenge itself, a location near the western end of the Cursus, close to Woodhenge and not to forget West Wales! There is simply not enough evidence to draw any useful conclusions


*To the 'elegant' phase we can also add the grooved bluestone 68, and the stump with a tongue, 66. I think we can guess that the bluestone trilithons and the grooved stones came from the same monument, and that this was a very sophisticated structure.

  Thanks C , I was unaware of them or missed the info if Johnson mentioned it . Looks like the Woodhenge site is out though .

              George

[Pete G]

crackt imagination, on 23 March 2009, 11:16, said:

*To the 'elegant' phase we can also add the grooved bluestone 68, and the stump with a tongue, 66. I think we can guess that the bluestone trilithons and the grooved stones came from the same monument, and that this was a very sophisticated structure.

something interesting about the tongue and grooved stones I found out last year.
They don't fit together.
The tongue is too large to fit the groove.
To me this implies either missing stones or wood was involved with the stones.
PeteG

[harry sivertsen]

Email me The conundrum regarding the dating of Stonehenge, at least the erection of the inner blue stone circles and horseshoe can be be discovered via the inclusion of the odd, short sarsen stone number 11.  This has calendrical associations previously missed. The reasoning behind this [too lengthy for full explanations here] is seen in my book Measurements of the Gods which can be read in full [or bought] at

http://www.completel...580/books/77136

Comments on my evaluations would be appreciated.

There is other unpublished material regarding this circle in the same chapter and many other intriguing and provable