58 replies to this topic

[Vlad]

Have you thought about that the result of your efforts, Kevin, will be raising the prices of some land patches and ultimate dividing of the society into morlocks and light-people!? It`s an illusion that you are only one to know; but others keep their mouths shut.

[Vlad]

P.S.
I mean, there were millions of people who met the "real" God and bore this experience with a balanced mind through their lives. Such experience was a beginning of a different path, crossroads to change direction, chance to improve their world-view, etc. But some of them couldn`t  bear the pettiness of their own existence, which came to light in such an encounter. Rationalizing God is like trying to catch him into a prison made of human mind constructions. And there you can dissect Him and triumph over Him. Alll done without analyzing yourself. As some medieval thinkers said; true knowledge begins with humbleness. But there`s a slight difference between you and them. Humbleness is not talking about your being humble.

[stonecarver]

If the size of a circle is dictated by the number of people who could fit into it, what do the avenues represent? processional ways, by which the gathered crowd could approach their sacred site?

[Peregrine]

Hi Stonecarver,

With regard to the avenues you wrote : << Processional ways, by which the gathered crowd could approach their sacred site ? >>.

Personally, I'd rather see them as entrance ways, by which the gathered crowd could approach their significant site.
The terminology 'processional' and 'sacred' gives the description an outspoken religious outlook.
I think that this outlook is a 'relic' of a past time when religion was too readily attached to all things ancient.
In order to keep an open mind, an outlook like that may block the view, i.m.o..

For all we know, stone circles with their avenues leading up to them may have been nothing more than some sort of corrals, where a herd of animals was collected before slaughtering ?

As for the size of these circles, and seen from an astronomical 'point of view ' , it seems to me that, the wider the circle is, the more precise any observations would be.
With the so-called passage graves this would be the other way around I think, the narrower and longer the passage, the more precise the observation.

But these are, of course, just my speculations.

All best,  Peregrine.

[kevin.b]

Stonecarver,
                     I have spent quite a bit of time following cursus and the banks around stone circles, I was particurally interested in the new bit found near SH, which PeteG, posted a link to, and was featured on time team.
I felt it encompassed a lot of what I find all over, speculation, with experts pronouncing things as fact.
A little bit hard that I know, but, without a fuller understanding of the reason for construction, then Perigrine is right, they could have built the circles as early lottery machines, which ever gap the pig ran out of you either won or lost a bet, would explain all the remnants of a big party ?
Why leave the gaps ?, if you wanted to corral something in, you wouldn't leave a gap ?
An early form of roulet wheel would work as well, spin a big stone around , and see where it stopped, roll up, roll up, for the big game ?
This may explain your carved balls, smaller home games instead of the big tribal games ?
In all honesty, I find lines, and a force , these align to most ancient sites I visit precisely, the force follows a straight course until it curves when it comes to an adjacent circle.
The cursus above SH, is straight, it has banks built up at the edge of two flows of this force, I follow these flows with ease, I can measure the line system it follows and tracks across precisely, I can follow the flows until they enter a long barrow, and spiral into the earth, the lower of these two flows creates spirals that turn in the opposite direction of the upper flow, I consider for very good reason that this lower flow is where all deceased life ends up, it is light, a pure white light I have seen in my head, our retina can't see it.
Ancient mankind knew this better than me, they must have done to construct world wide such stunning constructions, and honoured these two opposites as gods, I don't blame them, they are the creator, and the destroyer, in balance, all is fine, out of balance and you have a problem.
They will have had two routes, one to the barrows, where deceased life was percieved to go into the earth, the other was the creative force that provides all life, the other route will have been this flow sent where they desired and the whole area then flooded by it, if it tried to earth as well, stick a great pile of the substance it can't get through and so plug the hole as such.
These were no primitive people, and as such unless we recognise them as advanced, we will miss the truth, they knew more than we do.
Kevin

[stonecarver]

There's a huge differnce between 'primitive' and 'advanced'. As I posted earlier - societies develop along differnt lines... what archaeologists refer to as cultural pacakages. But the evidence for a less-than-primitive perspective has to be based on fact, not supposition. I would say that a lot of the south American cultures could be described as 'advanced' by virtue of their monumental structures, numeracy, and material culture.

In Britatin, it is the Technology of prehistory which indicates that prehsitoric society was less 'primitive' than the general public perhaps reaslises. The technology of bronze-casting, or of ground stone tools for example, illustrate this point neatly. You try making a bronze sword from scratch with only 'primitive' technology... it's a very complex process involving considerable accumulated knowledge and technological know-how. Much more than just a craft.

[Peregrine]

Hi all,

Just read the latest news on Stonehenge on BBC news, UK edition, Wales :


New glacier theory on Stonehenge  

The debate over how the stones arrived at Stonehenge continues
A geology team has contradicted claims that bluestones were dug by Bronze Age man from a west Wales quarry and carried 240 miles to build Stonehenge.
In a new twist, Open University geologists say the stones were in fact moved to Salisbury Plain by glaciers.

Last year archaeologists said the stones came from the Preseli Hills.

Recent research in the Oxford Journal of Archaeology suggests the stones were ripped from the ground and moved by glaciers during the Ice Age.

Geologists from the Open University first claimed in 1991 that the bluestones at one of Britain's best-known historic landmarks had not come from a quarry, but from different sources in the Preseli area.

The recent work was conducted by a team headed by Professor Olwen Williams-Thorpe, who said she and her colleagues had used geochemical analysis to trace the origins of axe heads found at Stonehenge and this backed up the original work.

  There has been a great reluctance to allow facts to interfere with a good story

Dr Brian John

"We concluded that the small number of axes that are actually bluestone derive from several different outcrops within Preseli," she said.

"Axes found at or near Stonehenge are very likely to be from the same outcrops as the monoliths, and could even be made of left-over bits of the monoliths."

The research  
Archaeologists claimed the stones came from a quarry at Carn Menyn

Dr Brian John, a geomorphologist living in Pembrokeshire, said he always thought the idea that Bronze Age man had quarried the stones and then taken them so far "stretched credibility".

But he said the debate would go on until someone was able to prove beyond doubt what happened one way or the other.

"This is very exciting, and it moves the bluestone debate on from the fanciful and unscientific assertions of the past," he said.

"Much of the archaeology in recent years has been based upon the assumption that Bronze Age man had a reason for transporting bluestones all the way from west Wales to Stonehenge and the technical capacity to do it.

"That has been the ruling hypothesis, and there has been a great reluctance to allow facts to interfere with a good story.

"Glaciers may move very slowly, but they have an excellent record when it comes to the transport of large stones from one part of the country to another."


All best,  Peregrine.

[stonecarver]

Despite what you  might read in some books and on the internet, most archaeologists have accepted that in fact the bluestones at Stonehenge were galcially deposited 'erratics' for some time now... the eividence has been there for quite a while... there are other blusetones deposited in the area and the ones at Stonehenge are not unique.

It was always a good story - that the stones had been brought from Wales by man, It's all to do with sensationalism... the public seem to prefer the more sensational versions of most theories (because it's more exciting and gives you more to think about).

[senua]

I do have some Stonehenge books that mention glacial erractics.One is a geology guide.
Maybe it was a bit of both.They found the erractics,like the stone,wanted more and found the source.
Would keep everyone happy then. lol.

[stonecarver]

Seems unlikely that they would be able to identify the source... as even today it taked special geological tests to do that...  there are plenty of glacially deposited stones about the area and much nearer to Stonehenge than the source... so why bother when it's on your doorstep? Interesting thought though!

[d0sid0]

has anybody put a timeline on how old these stones are?  could it be possible they were made on site and fired some way? possibly by kevins plasma lines?  how do they relate with the lanscape?  here i'm finding that by lining up the landscape i see the next hill-mountian matches the one i'm looking at.  also am finding rocks that appear to be maps of the mountians when you hold them up and align the right peaks.  from looking at the circles on this site this seems to be true there also.  hard to tell from a virtual pan rather than being there in person.  perhaps ley lines are maps of where our ancestors millions of years ago placed their underground canals, built their mountians, and rivers.

[Diego]

d0sid0, on 22 June 2006, 17:45, said:

could it be possible they were made on site and fired some way? possibly by kevins plasma lines?

d0sid0, if you'd like to discuss these non-conventional theories, please start a new thread in the appropriate section ("Alternative Theories") we devoted to them.

BTW, we moved the rest of the discussion, which was way off-topic, on that section.

[Pete G]

>there are other blusetones deposited in the area and the ones at Stonehenge are not unique.

Where?
There is only one piece of bluestone known in Wiltshire outside of Stonehenge, that came from Boles barrow.

[stonecarver]

I stand corrected, I meant to say that the Sarsens were in fact transported glacially and that they may have been brought from the Normanton Down area to Stonehenge. Sarsen stones, not Blue stones.

[Pete G]

So the blue stones were bought to Wiltshire how exactly?