This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
"Archaeologists believe the standing stones were erected around 3200 BC and the surrounding circular earth bank and ditch, which constitute the earliest phase of the monument, have been dated to about 3100 BC."
3200 BC is obviously earlier than 3100 BC, so this doesn't really make sense.
Can we call it an "archaeological site" when no archaeologists are digging there? That is the common use of the term, I think.
Ancient stone monument?
Archaeologists, while they are not physically there, are still picking over the bones, so to speak. It is still a major subject for archaeological speculation, and is therefore, probably, still an archaeological site. We don't know for sure that it was a monument except in the loosest possible sense of the word. Ancient: yes. Stone: certainly. But my, it attracts tourists. Therefore, how about (wait for it), ancient stone tourist attraction.:-) Best leave it as an archaeological site for the moment. Some of those druidical types will be around to work their magic on the prose in the due fullness of time in any case. sjc
I'm no expert on Stonehenge but having lived in that area and having been gifted with sight, it's pretty obvious that the "site" extends far beyond the little bit of fenced off area where the stones are. The site seems to extend some considerable distance with burial mounds for miles around. It's a shame the article doesn't dwell more upon that fact that two very busy roads run obtrusively right through Britain's most famous archeological site and the mutilation that English Heritage have performed with the buildings, tunnel and car park. At least the dubious political motives for locking the general public out of site in the first place should be addressed?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/entertainment/3662921.stm It was after all the first step towards turning the place into a megalith zoo (replete with electric fences.) And did I miss something or is there really no mention of Woodhenge which is very close by? - A henge lover. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
88.110.167.162 (
talk)
22:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,992215,00.html is the guardian online not the observer. Observer was the pen name of the journalist. I have corrected this but personally strongly protest at including a piece of tat journalism from an online paper which renders an article otherwise very likely to be visited by children inappropriate. This article is nothing like as significant as stonehenge: why do we repeat headline grabbers? BozMo (talk)
That stuff about the Nebra Skydisc is far too dodgy. As I understand it the provenance of the disc is unknown as it appeared on the international antiquities market with some backstory about it being dug up my metal detectorists on a barrow not a henge site. In fact the whole article is ill-informed from an archaeological point of view, the Ring of Brodgar is indeed an impressive stone circle but not really comparable in size or shape to Stonehenge no trilithons for a start. -- adamsan 20:28, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
though it may also have evolved from the Franco-Gaulish word Stanhengue which has the same meaning Can anyone corroborate this? Nothing comes up on Google for Stanhengue and the linguistics look a bit dodgy to me too. adamsan 17:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I might suggest moving the 'summer solstice 2005' section to a new page / sub-page. I've just added it in a section for now, as people here might find it interesting - and after the NTL proxy servers have been preventing my image uploads for ~3-hours, I don't have much energy left to move things around just now. I've a few other relevant images, such as posed shots of some druids well after sun-up, but it already has an overly heavy image:text ratio. -- Solipsist 19:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Someone should probably incorporate this new information on the source of the stones, and rewrite the necessary parts of the article. -- brian0918 ™ 22:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have some serious doubts about the accuracy of the name coming from the words Stanhen gist. Can anyone actually quote a source for this? A search on the net reveals a few sites that have more or less the exact same wording as the text here, so who knows which one is the original. Stan+hengen or something of that nature seems to be a much more natural construct. My old english is very poor, I should note, but it just seems far-fetched that a germanic language, and an ancestral tongue to english, no less, should be so different from the rest. The other germanic languages could all make up a similar word with the combination of stone/sten/stein/steen and hang/hangen/hengen/hengi/hange etc so it's quite a coincidence that one of them had a completely different set of word forms (stanhen and gist) that, split differently, seem much closer to the others and mean exactly the same thing.
If you get my drift. -- Bjornkri 11:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Ignore the dodgy domain, the following URL has a discussion about an allegedly taboo topic - that the Stonehenge we see these days is almost entirely a modern reconstruction (1901 - 1964) http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicstonehenge.htm If this article is correct then maybe there should be a section in the Wikipedia article about the reconstruction of Stonehenge.
Zuytdorp Survivor 14:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Council for British Archaeology (CBA)
Excavations at Stonehenge claims that Marcus Stone (1840-1921), the British painter, rose from the dead in 1950 and was commissioned by the Society of Antiquaries, with alive Richard Atkinson and alive Stuart Piggott to carry out further excavations at Stonehenge. My comment is, did Marcus Stone (1840-1921) really rise from the dead in 1950? The fact of the matter is it was Doctor John F.S. Stone, the alive British archaeologist who was commissioned by the Society of Antiquaries in 1950, not Marcus Stone (1840-1921), the dead British painter. It was they, Richard Atkinson, Stuart Piggott, and Doctor John F.S. Stone who recovered many cremations and developed the phasing that still dominates much of what is written about Stonehenge. Herewith fellow Wikipedians a beginning list of Encyclopedia Errors caused by CBA's author Excavations at Stonehenge paragraph [1]. "In 1950 the Society of Antiquaries commissioned Richard Atkinson, Stuart Piggott and Marcus Stone to carry out further excavations. They recovered many cremations and developed the phasing that still dominates much of what is written about Stonehenge." [2].
Does anyone know how to fix this slough of 1950 Marcus Stone (1840-1921) Encyclopedia Errors in and on behalf of Doctor John F.S. Stone, British archaeologist? I ask because CBA's author who fixed the mistake and rephrased it [3] after I told CBA about it promised to fix the rest like CBA's [4] but did nothing else, in spite of my many pleas. It has been almost three years since I discovered CBA's error while at Science a GoGo. Several page advertisers such as these [5] [6] [7] have asked when this will be fixed. Thank you fellow Wikipedians for any ideas you may have. Garry W. Denke, Geologist/Geophysicist Garry Denke 09:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
If anyone's wondering why I removed what appeared to be a legit external link, the IP that submitted it also submitted external links for a number of computer related topics. Nearly all of the links were registered to the same individual, and all of the links contained advert scripts or links. [8], [9] Oh no itsJamie Talk 02:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as the vast majority of the numerous edits to Stonehenge over the last few months have been vandalism or its reversion, would anyone support putting the article forward for semi-protection? adamsan 21:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Well I would be happy to help with requesting protection, or even applying the protection itself. Unfortunately whilst I agree that most of the anon edits here tend to be petty vandalism, it looks like semi-protection would be against Wikipedia:Semi-protection_policy - specifically 'When not to use semi-protection': to prohibit anonymous editing in general.
It is possible that policy ought to change for articles like this, that will always have a large volume of bored school children reading it for their homework. Repeatedly reverting vandalism can be demoralising for good editors. -- Solipsist 07:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I have removed a reference to druids using the Stonehenge for "abstruse rituals practised by white-robed wizards" as I felt this is offensive and subjective -- Crais459 10:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I have been in dialogue with the owner of the above site who would like to see it included in the External links section. Following a response I made to his most recent blog posting about the Stonehenge article, we have been in email contact. In order to ensure transparency and to give other editors an opportunity to comment, I post my most recent message below. I welcome any further views either from the site owner or other users with an opinion on the site's admissibility
Hello Dennis
Thank you for your response. I'm afraid I have not got time to resubmit my message to your blog and have no record of what I wrote anyway. I would be grateful however if would edit the entry so that it no longer incorrectly suggests that the information on laser scanning has been removed.
The rules for admissibility of external linking are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_normally_avoid and I would ask you to look them over in understanding why I am resisting the inclusion of your site. Reasons 1 and 9 are the ones I feel are most applicable, namely that the theories you propound are not verifiable through academic citation and that it could appear to be self-promotion of your site.
Many editors come to Wikipedia understanding it to be a welcoming conduit for disseminating new approaches to a subject. This is partly true but one of the central tenets of the project is that in order to be considered a reliable resource, all valid submissions need to be verifiable (not true, just verifiable), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability for the full details. As editors, we rely academic orthodoxy whether it is right or wrong because our task is to reflect the mainstream, published view. As unpublished authority on Stonehenge you are, in the eyes of the wiki, on the same level of verifiability as the Celtic Mysteries of Alien King Arthur's Pyramid in Atlantis brigade. See also the guidelines on original research which I think are are relevant in this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research . I appreciate that these rules can be frustrating. For example, from my own job I have knowledge of a number of recent archaeological discoveries that deserve to be disseminated as widely as possible. Some of these disprove some of my own contributions to the wiki but I cannot post them until the archaeologists involved get around to publishing something. Until then, I cannot respond to any challenge over verifiability or original research.
Have you considered submitting a paper to a peer-reviewed journal on your theories? Publication would instantly make your ideas acceptable for inclusion in the wiki. Without the (admittedly dubious) badge of academic respectability however, the inclusion of your blog sets a precedent for allowing a whole list of independent researchers to insert their blogs and their own points of view.
I will post this message on Talk:Stonehenge as I would rather that any further dialogue takes place in public.
Best wishes adamsan 10:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The article now contains seven pictures of Stonehenge which are essentially the same, although some may be more artistic than others. Perhaps we should consider what images are useful. MortimerCat 16:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed the Stonehenge 2004 and Stonehenge 2005 pictures. Has it changed significantly between those two years? MortimerCat 23:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep the 'Cleal' pics plus maybe one tourist pic.
The article needs to be linked to avebury also as they are part of a wider sacred landscape and intergral to all the elements, not as seperate enties.
There is a need to keep association and context intact as here may be read by more than just junior school kids.
The Australian sites are far far older than these newish UK ones. They probably originated in Australia though of course national egos wont let that be processed as it should be, for a while yet.
-- yes, and 9/11 was an inside job and man never landed on the moon. Thanks for your input!
The current article contains substantial material that appears out of place. It was introduced by an anonymous user over the course of several revisions and appears to be presenting someone's Stonehenge theories as fact. See this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Stonehenge&diff=82191826&oldid=82136593 I'm not that knowledgeable about StoneHenge, but this stuck out like a sore thumb, particularly with it's discussions of "generations" and references to what the builders actually thought and actually did. Could someone else confirm this well-meaning vandalism? Zuytdorp Survivor 06:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Heh, saw the discussions about incessant anon vandalism of this page and so removed the text in question - some had already been removed although the rest had been there for over a week. Zuytdorp Survivor 07:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
From the following paragraph onwards, there is much garbage, somebody should do something:
"The early attempts to figure out the people who had undertaken this colossal project have since been debunked. While there have been precious ..."
The top picture, Stonehenge 2004, is not showing properly, but I cannot find a reason why. Can someone else have a look, or is it just my viewer playing up? MortimerCat 10:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I have read somewhere suggesting the Stonehenge was made for female fertility rituals. Before the introduction of Christianity, the people there are known to have practiced paganism, which is usually centered around fertility. Plus, the spiritual leaders are known to be women. Additionally, the main section of Stonehenge, a circle, symbolizes the womb or uterus, while the section leading up to it symbolizes the birth canal or vagina.-- 141.214.17.5 07:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
No one truly knows what the monument is/was for. Therefore, I have added a NPOV tag to the part claiming the fertility issue. To claim we know what it means is ignorant. Jmlk17 08:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
"Plus, the spiritual leaders are known to be women." - Wow, some academic credentials you have there, please keep the zany stuff to your own website that no-one will visit as it's full of tosh.
Checked on the article after seeing: CNN Story
I noticed some information has appeared. Also, noticed passage:
The village was carbon dated to about 2600 B.C., about the same time Stonehenge was built. The Great Pyramid in Egypt was built at about the same time, said Parker Pearson of Sheffield University.
I have heard theories connecting them before, and wondered why it wasn't mentioned in the article, at least under "Alternative Theroies" or somesuch.
130.49.221.20 22:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
This article is way over the 32 kb recommended length given in WP:SIZE. Anyone mind if I shorten it? Some sections (eg "in recent times") are nearly as long as their own articles! Totnesmartin 15:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
As you can see I've edited it down, partly by removing text that was already in other articles, but also by creating two new articles: Theories about Stonehenge and Stonehenge in popular culture. Totnesmartin 14:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I took a crack at trimming the external links section -- lots of stuff in there that does not conform to the guidelines on useful external links. I took out dead links, a youtube.com page, all personal pages, those that repeat the same content, those that add little to the discussion (e.g. sites with a small summary section on stonehenge), and tangentially related sites. If anyone feels strongly about something I removed feel free to advocate and/or put it back with an explanation. Limey415 17:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
This image was moved out of the main article as result of the recent creation of Theories about Stonehenge. This image illustrates one of the early mythological theories about Stonehenge, and is apropriate for that article. It, however, is also the earliest know image of Stonehenge and, in my opinion, would be of some interest to the main article as well. Unless there are strong objections I will be inserting the image into the article in a few days. Dsmdgold 15:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I have a photograph of Stonehenge taken in July 1877 by a relative. Would people be agreeable to me adding it here? Teapotgeorge 18:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I've just added the 1877 photograph let me know if it's in the correct place? Teapotgeorge 15:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I have no training or education in archelogy (I can't even spell it), but could somebody "fix" the first paragraph? It doesn't read well. Remember this site is viewed by the general public much more than archaeologists.
It needs something like this:
Stonehenge is an ancient earthwork composed of large standing stones in a circular setting. One of the most famous prehistoric sites, it is located in the English county of Wilshire, 13km from etc. etc. Archelogoists agree/claim/believe it was constructed around 3200 BC(possibly add a footnote here, but the date is probably a well known and generally agreed upon fact). (The part about the ditch fits into the development of stonehenge, it's not important to the general description, it's more of a technical note.) It is a UNESCO heritage site, etc.
This is an old article, so I'm sure all of this has been discussed. The discussion page itself is quite long. If this has already been covered, please disregard. Still it would be nice to fix this paragraph, make it more accesible to the general public and trim some unneeded technicalities that can be covered later. Thanks.
~~
I made a couple of quick changes in the first paragraph. If anyone wants to further edit that, please make improvements.
~~
The sentence Late Cretaceous (Santonian Age) Seaford Chalk is the geologic formation outcrop at Stonehenge. has been added to the opening paragraph of the article. I'm sure that should be better worded for a start - 'The geologic formation outcrop at Stonehenge is Late Cretaceous (Santonian Age) Seaford Chalk' for example. Also does anyone know what it means? I'm assuming it doesn't refer to the stones themselves since they are either the bluestones or the sarsens. Does it mean the land on which the monument is situated? This should be made clear.
Finally, it should be placed elsewhere in the article, it doesn't seem to fit in the opening paragraph, which is already long enough. Ideally, this should be a simple concise opening description of the salient facts. Discussing the geology at this stage will probably put off the casual reader.
What do people think? Benea 13:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
There are Stonehenge's in Ireland along with England aren't there? - Sox 207 21:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I heard on the the History Channel once that they are thinking that Pretons built it. 24.4.131.142 03:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I've stumbled today on this site: http://www.mediabum.com/html/How-to-Build-Stonehenge.html
This short documentary shows a stateside, retired construction worker (Wally Wallington) who's been getting some press for building a slightly larger "Stonehenge" in his back yard. He shows how a single person can move, raise, and stand up 25-ton rock. Could be an eligible entry?
Billygotee ( talk) 23:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks interesting. I've started a small section on construction. I suggest that it deserves no more, and in particular no alien theories. Wally (I wonder if he's heard of the Wallies who occupied Stonehenge for a while?) is only the latest of several people to demonstrate plausible techniques. There was a film made in the 1950s I think, and that recent attempt to get stones transported by people power from Pembroke, which ended in fiasco. Any good links to others? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 12:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I may be wrong about this, but I felt it might be worth talking about. Every reference I've ever seen to Stonehenge indicates that it is owned by the nation - or occasionally the government. Cecil Chubb donated it to the nation in 1918, and it is English Heritages responsibility to manage it for the nation under the National Heritage act. My belief was that the Crown was responsible for the Commonwealth, and thus the property of the crown was the property of more than just Britain. I only question it because amongst all the texts I've read about Stonehenge I've never seen it referenced as under the 'ownership of the crown', and Chub donated it to Britain alone. Any thoughts? Psychostevouk ( talk) 17:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
From Stonehenge:
"The Heel Stone once known as the Friar's Heel, a corruption of the Welsh "Freya sul" or "Freya's Seal"
Freya in Welsh?
Actually, just researched it some more - this may not be the Norse Freya after all. I'll remove the link and query the corruption. tnx. sjc Later: Ffreya is also a Celtic/druidic goddess so this looks more convincing now, particularly when set against the ever-reliable Geoffrey of Monmouth's confabulations.... sjc
The Heelstone section here refers the translation as “Sunday” whereas the main Heelstone article refers “Friday”. Will the real translation please stand up? 158.180.64.10 ( talk) 13:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
There are several pictures now available of Stonhenge from different directions. Does somebody know from wich directen they where taken and could he/she please add it to the picture discription? A gallary would imho be nice too. -- Arcy2 16:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.177.204.254 ( talk) 23:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed two conflicting points in the following articles.
In the wiki page Cecil_Chubb the article explains that he "was the last owner of Stonehenge which he gave to the nation in 1918."
In the wiki page stonehenge the article explains that his wife gave the site away to the nation. "In 1915 Cecil Chubb bought Stonehenge, through Knight Frank & Rutley estate agents, for £6,000 as a present for his wife. She gave it to the nation three years later."
I know it's only a minor variation but does anyone know which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.47.127 ( talk) 03:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The Cecil Chubb page is correct. Sir Cecil actually purchased Stonehenge for £6,600 on a whim as he believed a local man should own the site. His wife was not pleased with his purchase. He then gave the site to English Heritage and was knighted in 1919 to mark his generosity. I've changed the stonehenge page. Louisejharden ( talk) 18:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The photograph as originally uploaded has a stone on the right which has been entirely removed in a later version. Am I the only person who thinks this is taking image cleanup too far? See the file history at commons:Image:Stonehenge back wide.jpg. William Avery ( talk) 20:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Why does it look surfaced in this image?
When you go on image click go on your browser make it show up
Gaogier ( talk) 19:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The article states "in 1987 they prohibited access within the circle completely. Visitors are no longer permitted to touch the stones, but merely walk around the monument from a short distance." But that's not entirely true, there are about a dozen days each year when visitors can touch the stones under controlled circumstances, I did so in 2005 myself. CoW mAnX ( talk) 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The article still ignores the dubious political motives for banning access to the site and the general harassment of New Age Travellers at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.8.20 ( talk) 16:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
isn't all of "Etymology" and "History" copied word for word from skepticworld.com?
-- AznShark ( talk) 18:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It's nice to see some info on the new dig, but it seems a little out of place in an article that has practically no information about any other archaeological research at the site, and it looks a little uncomfortable as a kind of 'tag on' at the bottom of the page. This dig is no more important than any of the digs that have gone before. Wouldn't it be better to have an 'archaeological research' section including information on the digs throughout the twentieth century within the 'recent history' section? I'll gladly put this together if everyone agrees. Psychostevouk ( talk) 10:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added some detail, combining it with the restoration section, as a lot of excavation was done alongside each phase of the rebuilding. You'll notice a lot of dodgy links and lack of references but I'll get to work cleaning it up over the next few days - but feel free to add refs if you like! Psychostevouk ( talk) 15:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry JzG, but I've undone your edit to the article. This isn't some attempt to annoy you, but I think the external links requires a little more consideration than just deleting a large amount at a time. As the WP:SPAMHOLE article says "The best remedy is to evaluate each link one at a time" and I think that is necessary here. Several deleted links - especially laserscans of the monument by Wessex Archaeology, and Stukeley's text on the stones are important to the article, whilst some that you left including Stonehenge and others are probably more worthy of deletion. Could we discuss this before we make significant edits to peoples ability to learn more about the article? Regards Psychostevouk ( talk) 22:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Pretty good, except I don't think the article on the UFO site about Dark Forces is really acceptable, and the same goes for the photo gallery on the Sacred Destinations site. Oh, and Brian John's stuff on Bluestones, personal website and all that, interesting speculation but I don't think appropriate. I wish Mike Pitts still had his Hengeworld site. Cut those 3 out and it will be fine unless a new site pops up. Doug Weller ( talk) 21:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as this article is about a non-christian topic and in many ways significant to non christians wouldnt it be better to use BC BCe
Dear Sirs, There is a problem with the B.C. dating of pre-historic times. It creates the impression that events are less distant in terms of time passed.One has to add two thousand years each time, and this senseless addition disrupts apt thinking. Stonehenge is five thousand years old. Humans in that neolitic time were starting basic agriculture in Europe. Hunting was still extremely important, particularly in England. There was plenty of wild cattle, dangerous bulls, bears, and perhaps a number of lions. There was war among bands of hunters. One should consider the possibility of Stonehenge being a fort or castle, and an embankment to round up cattle and wild game, to slaughter it easily. The article ignores these facts and should be completed with this reazonable theory. The Sarsen Circle must also be considered a tactical construction, the first castle of History, as defensive core of the embankment. Religious and astronomical purposes of Stonehenge are unsatisfactory as the only explanation of the monument. Please consider this change to the text of the article in Wikipedia. Santiago sevilla ( talk) 13:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I rolled the two sections together, as they collectively consisted of three sentences. I appreciate the need to keep the whole page from turning into some rehash of UFOs and ley lines, but I think we have to acknowledge that the main cultural fascination with Stonehenge is its 'mystery.' Ethan Mitchell ( talk) 17:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The Aubrey Holes were ment to represent the weeks in a year: 56 weeks of 6.5 days as in Babylon 3000 B.C.These numbers should be mentioned in the main article.
I have a theory, we can't know for sure how the stonehenge was built, but seeing as i live in the northern mariana island (Tinian) where latte stones are our version of the stonehenge, i believe that it is possible that humans made them. It sounds ridiculous, but we don't know for sure. I believe superhumans did exist, long before diseases/plagues started to evolve. Think about it! Ndpascua ( talk) 14:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Whilst I do like the main image for this article (its a good angle and has a lovely brooding sky), it is a shame that in order to remove the people from the shot the far right stone has been removed, but a car and shed between the rightmost standing stone and trilithon have remained. With a quick bit of photoshopping I can remove the car, shed, people, road-sign, speck and small bird in the foreground, but keep the far right stone. I assume that this is ok in Wikipedia (if not please say). What does everyone think about doing this to keep the stones complete but lose the modern stuff? Psychostevouk ( talk) 20:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The rounded appearance of the Heelstone suggests that it is a glacial erratic. Does it predate Stonehenge itself? If so, it might have been something of a mystery to our ancestors. Is it possible that the Heelstone might have served as a catalyst for a construction so grandiose as Stonehenge? Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 19:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
There are theories that the heelstone, along with the nearby Cuckoo stone and Bulford stones (all sarsens - the s is plural) are natural deposits, whereas the sarsens at Stonehenge are most likely from the Marlborough Downs twenty miles away (hence imported to the area). This is mainly borne from the fact that they are unshaped stones, and there is no definitive date for the heeltsones erection. It is possible that the heelstone was a natural deposit in the area, and may have been the basis for building another monument. For example - IF the Cuckoo stone were a natural deposit where it is, then it would seem that Woodhenge and the Cursus were both aligned on it. That doesn't mean the heelstone always stood where it is (the bluestone under it refutes that) but just because early Stonehenge had timber posts, doesn't mean that stone was not allowed in it. Woodhenge had at least 2 stone settings for instance. If the heelstone was a deposit nearby it may have been used as a focus for activities, like the other stones in the area were (both the Bulford and Cuckoo stones had burials around them), and erected at Stonehenge later. Who knows – it might even have originally been located in the centre of the circle – as a deposit - hence construction around it. We don’t know and probably never will. It doesn't mean that Stonehenge was built because the heelstone was there, but it doesn't mean that it wasn't already ritually important in the landscape and came to be used for the construction of the circle. The fact it is unshaped suggests something different from the other sarsens in the circle – although equally this may be because the builders were tired of shaping the stones once they got them to Stonehenge. Virgil, you might also be interested to know that it originally probably had a partner stone next to it, and so wasn’t quite as unique as it now appears. Haven’t got any references for you for this though, but stuff’s out there on it. It’s not really relevant to the article though. Psychostevouk ( talk) 17:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Another question: Depictions and models of Stonehenge usually show it as a complete circle. What evidence indicates that it was, in fact, completed in antiquity? Have most or all of the capstones, for example, been accounted for at the site or in the community roundabout? This would have a bearing on restoration efforts at Stonehenge. I am in favor of restoration, by the way, as long as it doesn't alter or erase the original builders' work. I would love to see the Egyptians reface the pyramids so that we could see at least one of them in its original glory. Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 04:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
He is a bit keen – with the recent dig at Stonehenge I’ve seen his name on every cooments section of online newspaper articles – here’s a good example. Like everyone else Pitts has theories, but they are theories. We will probably never know exactly what Stonehenge finally looked like, or was for. If it (it being a pronoun) was ever a complete circle, we do not know – because we have no record of it like that. It was probably finished – but what does finished mean? The y and z holes probably never held anything – in one sense that implies they weren’t finished. They have infill from the bronze age all the way through to the 14th Century, so they probably filled in over time – not deliberately backfilled during the monuments construction. They may have been waiting for another ring of stones than never arrived. Similarly whilst we can fairly certainly guess that the standing stones were erected in the socket holes making up a complete circle, we don’t know that all of them were capped with lintels. It seems likely that Stonehenge was systematically broken down for various reasons over a long period of time, but for a full half of a complete structure to be missing is quite impressive. The damage is also random (a mix of every type of stone position survives), suggesting that there was never an organised attempt to remove it. The surrounding monuments also show little evidence of deliberate destruction. The stone would have been useful in an area of chalk and little other building material, but it is not an easy stone to work, and of limited value for building. Added to that there isn’t much evidence for the stones in the local area. So it is fair to speculate that Stonehenge was never finished to the same degree as reconstructions show. It is just speculation. I remember reading it somewhere, but I can’t think where now, and I can’t remember who the supporters were – but I do remember the point Benea makes being in it. I have spoken to some archaeologists though, and they accept that it is a possibility – but not necessarily one that they promote. Virgil asked a question, I gave him my answer. It’s not a case of original research or anything, and I wouldn’t start making noises about including it in the article without referencing it. It’s just an answer to a question. Psychostevouk ( talk) 17:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks like the dates need adjusting. [1]-- Doug Weller ( talk) 14:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
Similarities of Stonehenge to passage graves like Bryn Celli Ddu or dolmen portals suggests a question: Is it possible that Stonehenge is the incomplete or eroded remains of a large late-neolithic passage tomb? Stonehenge does stand in the middle of a large grave yard. The orientation of the Trilithon horseshoe to the Summer Solstice is like that of some passage graves. Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 08:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)zbvhs
I tried editing this section as I thought it seemed a bit wrong, until I realised that it actually seems to make no sense at all and thought I'd better discuss it first! From the first para of 'History':
What exactly is this referring to? Does the 'Stonehenge complex' refer only to the main monument itself (roughly 3000-1500BC) or does it include such monuments as the Cursus (3500 BC- maybe 2500BC). If so that's a rough max of 2000 years, not 3000. Although Stonehenge shows plausible evidence of adaptation as late of the Roman period, it's not proven and not mentioned here, so we can't include that. All we have is the scroll trench (maybe 700BC). But that's still only 2500 years, unless there may have been something there before that I haven't heard of? Although the bones in the ditch are older than Stonehenge they can hardly be classed as an earlier feature. The Mesolithic post holes from 8000BC would indeed push the life of the monument to 6500 years if we accepted an end to the adaptation at 1500BC (thus killing the 3000 year bit), but its fair to say that they aren't part of Stonehenge (Stonehenge being everything inside the ditch and bank, which they are not - the post holes are a significantly earlier monument nearby). Might I recommend an amended para:
Any thoughts?
2 other points: Unfortunately with the removal of the semi protection vandalism seems to be up again. Also, this years Stonehenge Riverside Project seems to have been one of the best ever. No refs yet, but if everything comes out as it seems to be this page may require some heavy rewrites next year! Regards Psychostevouk ( talk) 18:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was writing it as an adaptation to the original para that didn't make much sense (the complex bit) so I wanted to distinguish between Stonehenge (the monument from 3000-1500BC comprising of everything within the ditch and bank) and everything else in the landscape. I thought it fitted with the new sentence then expanding to the landscape. Just thought it made the differentiation clearer. Changed it now but it can easily be removed if everyone thinks it should.
Looking at the history page I do think semi protection is justified, although I have no idea how to do this. Normally I'd go find out but I suspect you actually need to be an admin to do this. anyone know? Psychostevouk ( talk) 08:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I've put in a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. See what happens. I'm sure anyone looking through the history of the article would sympathise! Psychostevouk ( talk) 16:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure most of you will have seen this fairly sensationalist headline from the BBC claiming Stonehenge was started in 2300BC. For my own part I think this sort of work should be carefully considered before anyone over enthusiastically re-writes great swathes of the article. Geoff Wainwright and Tim Darvill dated a former bluestone socket. This doesn't necessarily mean that it was the first such stone socket at Stonehenge. In fact, a perfectly decent report from the Stonehenge Riverside Project has pointed out that the sarsens were raised much earlier. For my own part I'm unsure how Geoff and Tim have inferred that this one socket is the earliest at Stonehenge, and whether they, or the BBC decided that this pinpoints Stonehenge's beginnings. They don't even reveal which particular arrangement it is from - if it's the inner bluestone circle (which is where the trench appeared to be situated) then it has always been believed that this was the final bluestone arrangement - not the first. I think Harami2000's edit is perfect as it incorporates the latest findings but doesn't confuse things unnecessarily. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of academics react to this story... Just my 2 cents. Regards Psychostevouk ( talk) 09:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's more "news" on the BBC website. Not quite sure as to the method of incorporating both those p.o.v.s vs. the conventional viewpoint, but extending that opening section is probably still a sound approach and explaining that the dates below are for that conventional chronology? Any other ideas? :) Harami2000 ( talk) 18:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
"Archaeologists believe the standing stones were erected around 3200 BC and the surrounding circular earth bank and ditch, which constitute the earliest phase of the monument, have been dated to about 3100 BC."
3200 BC is obviously earlier than 3100 BC, so this doesn't really make sense.
Can we call it an "archaeological site" when no archaeologists are digging there? That is the common use of the term, I think.
Ancient stone monument?
Archaeologists, while they are not physically there, are still picking over the bones, so to speak. It is still a major subject for archaeological speculation, and is therefore, probably, still an archaeological site. We don't know for sure that it was a monument except in the loosest possible sense of the word. Ancient: yes. Stone: certainly. But my, it attracts tourists. Therefore, how about (wait for it), ancient stone tourist attraction.:-) Best leave it as an archaeological site for the moment. Some of those druidical types will be around to work their magic on the prose in the due fullness of time in any case. sjc
I'm no expert on Stonehenge but having lived in that area and having been gifted with sight, it's pretty obvious that the "site" extends far beyond the little bit of fenced off area where the stones are. The site seems to extend some considerable distance with burial mounds for miles around. It's a shame the article doesn't dwell more upon that fact that two very busy roads run obtrusively right through Britain's most famous archeological site and the mutilation that English Heritage have performed with the buildings, tunnel and car park. At least the dubious political motives for locking the general public out of site in the first place should be addressed?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/entertainment/3662921.stm It was after all the first step towards turning the place into a megalith zoo (replete with electric fences.) And did I miss something or is there really no mention of Woodhenge which is very close by? - A henge lover. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
88.110.167.162 (
talk)
22:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,992215,00.html is the guardian online not the observer. Observer was the pen name of the journalist. I have corrected this but personally strongly protest at including a piece of tat journalism from an online paper which renders an article otherwise very likely to be visited by children inappropriate. This article is nothing like as significant as stonehenge: why do we repeat headline grabbers? BozMo (talk)
That stuff about the Nebra Skydisc is far too dodgy. As I understand it the provenance of the disc is unknown as it appeared on the international antiquities market with some backstory about it being dug up my metal detectorists on a barrow not a henge site. In fact the whole article is ill-informed from an archaeological point of view, the Ring of Brodgar is indeed an impressive stone circle but not really comparable in size or shape to Stonehenge no trilithons for a start. -- adamsan 20:28, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
though it may also have evolved from the Franco-Gaulish word Stanhengue which has the same meaning Can anyone corroborate this? Nothing comes up on Google for Stanhengue and the linguistics look a bit dodgy to me too. adamsan 17:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I might suggest moving the 'summer solstice 2005' section to a new page / sub-page. I've just added it in a section for now, as people here might find it interesting - and after the NTL proxy servers have been preventing my image uploads for ~3-hours, I don't have much energy left to move things around just now. I've a few other relevant images, such as posed shots of some druids well after sun-up, but it already has an overly heavy image:text ratio. -- Solipsist 19:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Someone should probably incorporate this new information on the source of the stones, and rewrite the necessary parts of the article. -- brian0918 ™ 22:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have some serious doubts about the accuracy of the name coming from the words Stanhen gist. Can anyone actually quote a source for this? A search on the net reveals a few sites that have more or less the exact same wording as the text here, so who knows which one is the original. Stan+hengen or something of that nature seems to be a much more natural construct. My old english is very poor, I should note, but it just seems far-fetched that a germanic language, and an ancestral tongue to english, no less, should be so different from the rest. The other germanic languages could all make up a similar word with the combination of stone/sten/stein/steen and hang/hangen/hengen/hengi/hange etc so it's quite a coincidence that one of them had a completely different set of word forms (stanhen and gist) that, split differently, seem much closer to the others and mean exactly the same thing.
If you get my drift. -- Bjornkri 11:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Ignore the dodgy domain, the following URL has a discussion about an allegedly taboo topic - that the Stonehenge we see these days is almost entirely a modern reconstruction (1901 - 1964) http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicstonehenge.htm If this article is correct then maybe there should be a section in the Wikipedia article about the reconstruction of Stonehenge.
Zuytdorp Survivor 14:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Council for British Archaeology (CBA)
Excavations at Stonehenge claims that Marcus Stone (1840-1921), the British painter, rose from the dead in 1950 and was commissioned by the Society of Antiquaries, with alive Richard Atkinson and alive Stuart Piggott to carry out further excavations at Stonehenge. My comment is, did Marcus Stone (1840-1921) really rise from the dead in 1950? The fact of the matter is it was Doctor John F.S. Stone, the alive British archaeologist who was commissioned by the Society of Antiquaries in 1950, not Marcus Stone (1840-1921), the dead British painter. It was they, Richard Atkinson, Stuart Piggott, and Doctor John F.S. Stone who recovered many cremations and developed the phasing that still dominates much of what is written about Stonehenge. Herewith fellow Wikipedians a beginning list of Encyclopedia Errors caused by CBA's author Excavations at Stonehenge paragraph [1]. "In 1950 the Society of Antiquaries commissioned Richard Atkinson, Stuart Piggott and Marcus Stone to carry out further excavations. They recovered many cremations and developed the phasing that still dominates much of what is written about Stonehenge." [2].
Does anyone know how to fix this slough of 1950 Marcus Stone (1840-1921) Encyclopedia Errors in and on behalf of Doctor John F.S. Stone, British archaeologist? I ask because CBA's author who fixed the mistake and rephrased it [3] after I told CBA about it promised to fix the rest like CBA's [4] but did nothing else, in spite of my many pleas. It has been almost three years since I discovered CBA's error while at Science a GoGo. Several page advertisers such as these [5] [6] [7] have asked when this will be fixed. Thank you fellow Wikipedians for any ideas you may have. Garry W. Denke, Geologist/Geophysicist Garry Denke 09:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
If anyone's wondering why I removed what appeared to be a legit external link, the IP that submitted it also submitted external links for a number of computer related topics. Nearly all of the links were registered to the same individual, and all of the links contained advert scripts or links. [8], [9] Oh no itsJamie Talk 02:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as the vast majority of the numerous edits to Stonehenge over the last few months have been vandalism or its reversion, would anyone support putting the article forward for semi-protection? adamsan 21:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Well I would be happy to help with requesting protection, or even applying the protection itself. Unfortunately whilst I agree that most of the anon edits here tend to be petty vandalism, it looks like semi-protection would be against Wikipedia:Semi-protection_policy - specifically 'When not to use semi-protection': to prohibit anonymous editing in general.
It is possible that policy ought to change for articles like this, that will always have a large volume of bored school children reading it for their homework. Repeatedly reverting vandalism can be demoralising for good editors. -- Solipsist 07:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I have removed a reference to druids using the Stonehenge for "abstruse rituals practised by white-robed wizards" as I felt this is offensive and subjective -- Crais459 10:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I have been in dialogue with the owner of the above site who would like to see it included in the External links section. Following a response I made to his most recent blog posting about the Stonehenge article, we have been in email contact. In order to ensure transparency and to give other editors an opportunity to comment, I post my most recent message below. I welcome any further views either from the site owner or other users with an opinion on the site's admissibility
Hello Dennis
Thank you for your response. I'm afraid I have not got time to resubmit my message to your blog and have no record of what I wrote anyway. I would be grateful however if would edit the entry so that it no longer incorrectly suggests that the information on laser scanning has been removed.
The rules for admissibility of external linking are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_normally_avoid and I would ask you to look them over in understanding why I am resisting the inclusion of your site. Reasons 1 and 9 are the ones I feel are most applicable, namely that the theories you propound are not verifiable through academic citation and that it could appear to be self-promotion of your site.
Many editors come to Wikipedia understanding it to be a welcoming conduit for disseminating new approaches to a subject. This is partly true but one of the central tenets of the project is that in order to be considered a reliable resource, all valid submissions need to be verifiable (not true, just verifiable), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability for the full details. As editors, we rely academic orthodoxy whether it is right or wrong because our task is to reflect the mainstream, published view. As unpublished authority on Stonehenge you are, in the eyes of the wiki, on the same level of verifiability as the Celtic Mysteries of Alien King Arthur's Pyramid in Atlantis brigade. See also the guidelines on original research which I think are are relevant in this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research . I appreciate that these rules can be frustrating. For example, from my own job I have knowledge of a number of recent archaeological discoveries that deserve to be disseminated as widely as possible. Some of these disprove some of my own contributions to the wiki but I cannot post them until the archaeologists involved get around to publishing something. Until then, I cannot respond to any challenge over verifiability or original research.
Have you considered submitting a paper to a peer-reviewed journal on your theories? Publication would instantly make your ideas acceptable for inclusion in the wiki. Without the (admittedly dubious) badge of academic respectability however, the inclusion of your blog sets a precedent for allowing a whole list of independent researchers to insert their blogs and their own points of view.
I will post this message on Talk:Stonehenge as I would rather that any further dialogue takes place in public.
Best wishes adamsan 10:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The article now contains seven pictures of Stonehenge which are essentially the same, although some may be more artistic than others. Perhaps we should consider what images are useful. MortimerCat 16:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed the Stonehenge 2004 and Stonehenge 2005 pictures. Has it changed significantly between those two years? MortimerCat 23:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep the 'Cleal' pics plus maybe one tourist pic.
The article needs to be linked to avebury also as they are part of a wider sacred landscape and intergral to all the elements, not as seperate enties.
There is a need to keep association and context intact as here may be read by more than just junior school kids.
The Australian sites are far far older than these newish UK ones. They probably originated in Australia though of course national egos wont let that be processed as it should be, for a while yet.
-- yes, and 9/11 was an inside job and man never landed on the moon. Thanks for your input!
The current article contains substantial material that appears out of place. It was introduced by an anonymous user over the course of several revisions and appears to be presenting someone's Stonehenge theories as fact. See this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Stonehenge&diff=82191826&oldid=82136593 I'm not that knowledgeable about StoneHenge, but this stuck out like a sore thumb, particularly with it's discussions of "generations" and references to what the builders actually thought and actually did. Could someone else confirm this well-meaning vandalism? Zuytdorp Survivor 06:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Heh, saw the discussions about incessant anon vandalism of this page and so removed the text in question - some had already been removed although the rest had been there for over a week. Zuytdorp Survivor 07:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
From the following paragraph onwards, there is much garbage, somebody should do something:
"The early attempts to figure out the people who had undertaken this colossal project have since been debunked. While there have been precious ..."
The top picture, Stonehenge 2004, is not showing properly, but I cannot find a reason why. Can someone else have a look, or is it just my viewer playing up? MortimerCat 10:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I have read somewhere suggesting the Stonehenge was made for female fertility rituals. Before the introduction of Christianity, the people there are known to have practiced paganism, which is usually centered around fertility. Plus, the spiritual leaders are known to be women. Additionally, the main section of Stonehenge, a circle, symbolizes the womb or uterus, while the section leading up to it symbolizes the birth canal or vagina.-- 141.214.17.5 07:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
No one truly knows what the monument is/was for. Therefore, I have added a NPOV tag to the part claiming the fertility issue. To claim we know what it means is ignorant. Jmlk17 08:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
"Plus, the spiritual leaders are known to be women." - Wow, some academic credentials you have there, please keep the zany stuff to your own website that no-one will visit as it's full of tosh.
Checked on the article after seeing: CNN Story
I noticed some information has appeared. Also, noticed passage:
The village was carbon dated to about 2600 B.C., about the same time Stonehenge was built. The Great Pyramid in Egypt was built at about the same time, said Parker Pearson of Sheffield University.
I have heard theories connecting them before, and wondered why it wasn't mentioned in the article, at least under "Alternative Theroies" or somesuch.
130.49.221.20 22:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
This article is way over the 32 kb recommended length given in WP:SIZE. Anyone mind if I shorten it? Some sections (eg "in recent times") are nearly as long as their own articles! Totnesmartin 15:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
As you can see I've edited it down, partly by removing text that was already in other articles, but also by creating two new articles: Theories about Stonehenge and Stonehenge in popular culture. Totnesmartin 14:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I took a crack at trimming the external links section -- lots of stuff in there that does not conform to the guidelines on useful external links. I took out dead links, a youtube.com page, all personal pages, those that repeat the same content, those that add little to the discussion (e.g. sites with a small summary section on stonehenge), and tangentially related sites. If anyone feels strongly about something I removed feel free to advocate and/or put it back with an explanation. Limey415 17:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
This image was moved out of the main article as result of the recent creation of Theories about Stonehenge. This image illustrates one of the early mythological theories about Stonehenge, and is apropriate for that article. It, however, is also the earliest know image of Stonehenge and, in my opinion, would be of some interest to the main article as well. Unless there are strong objections I will be inserting the image into the article in a few days. Dsmdgold 15:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I have a photograph of Stonehenge taken in July 1877 by a relative. Would people be agreeable to me adding it here? Teapotgeorge 18:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I've just added the 1877 photograph let me know if it's in the correct place? Teapotgeorge 15:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I have no training or education in archelogy (I can't even spell it), but could somebody "fix" the first paragraph? It doesn't read well. Remember this site is viewed by the general public much more than archaeologists.
It needs something like this:
Stonehenge is an ancient earthwork composed of large standing stones in a circular setting. One of the most famous prehistoric sites, it is located in the English county of Wilshire, 13km from etc. etc. Archelogoists agree/claim/believe it was constructed around 3200 BC(possibly add a footnote here, but the date is probably a well known and generally agreed upon fact). (The part about the ditch fits into the development of stonehenge, it's not important to the general description, it's more of a technical note.) It is a UNESCO heritage site, etc.
This is an old article, so I'm sure all of this has been discussed. The discussion page itself is quite long. If this has already been covered, please disregard. Still it would be nice to fix this paragraph, make it more accesible to the general public and trim some unneeded technicalities that can be covered later. Thanks.
~~
I made a couple of quick changes in the first paragraph. If anyone wants to further edit that, please make improvements.
~~
The sentence Late Cretaceous (Santonian Age) Seaford Chalk is the geologic formation outcrop at Stonehenge. has been added to the opening paragraph of the article. I'm sure that should be better worded for a start - 'The geologic formation outcrop at Stonehenge is Late Cretaceous (Santonian Age) Seaford Chalk' for example. Also does anyone know what it means? I'm assuming it doesn't refer to the stones themselves since they are either the bluestones or the sarsens. Does it mean the land on which the monument is situated? This should be made clear.
Finally, it should be placed elsewhere in the article, it doesn't seem to fit in the opening paragraph, which is already long enough. Ideally, this should be a simple concise opening description of the salient facts. Discussing the geology at this stage will probably put off the casual reader.
What do people think? Benea 13:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
There are Stonehenge's in Ireland along with England aren't there? - Sox 207 21:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I heard on the the History Channel once that they are thinking that Pretons built it. 24.4.131.142 03:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I've stumbled today on this site: http://www.mediabum.com/html/How-to-Build-Stonehenge.html
This short documentary shows a stateside, retired construction worker (Wally Wallington) who's been getting some press for building a slightly larger "Stonehenge" in his back yard. He shows how a single person can move, raise, and stand up 25-ton rock. Could be an eligible entry?
Billygotee ( talk) 23:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks interesting. I've started a small section on construction. I suggest that it deserves no more, and in particular no alien theories. Wally (I wonder if he's heard of the Wallies who occupied Stonehenge for a while?) is only the latest of several people to demonstrate plausible techniques. There was a film made in the 1950s I think, and that recent attempt to get stones transported by people power from Pembroke, which ended in fiasco. Any good links to others? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 12:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I may be wrong about this, but I felt it might be worth talking about. Every reference I've ever seen to Stonehenge indicates that it is owned by the nation - or occasionally the government. Cecil Chubb donated it to the nation in 1918, and it is English Heritages responsibility to manage it for the nation under the National Heritage act. My belief was that the Crown was responsible for the Commonwealth, and thus the property of the crown was the property of more than just Britain. I only question it because amongst all the texts I've read about Stonehenge I've never seen it referenced as under the 'ownership of the crown', and Chub donated it to Britain alone. Any thoughts? Psychostevouk ( talk) 17:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
From Stonehenge:
"The Heel Stone once known as the Friar's Heel, a corruption of the Welsh "Freya sul" or "Freya's Seal"
Freya in Welsh?
Actually, just researched it some more - this may not be the Norse Freya after all. I'll remove the link and query the corruption. tnx. sjc Later: Ffreya is also a Celtic/druidic goddess so this looks more convincing now, particularly when set against the ever-reliable Geoffrey of Monmouth's confabulations.... sjc
The Heelstone section here refers the translation as “Sunday” whereas the main Heelstone article refers “Friday”. Will the real translation please stand up? 158.180.64.10 ( talk) 13:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
There are several pictures now available of Stonhenge from different directions. Does somebody know from wich directen they where taken and could he/she please add it to the picture discription? A gallary would imho be nice too. -- Arcy2 16:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.177.204.254 ( talk) 23:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed two conflicting points in the following articles.
In the wiki page Cecil_Chubb the article explains that he "was the last owner of Stonehenge which he gave to the nation in 1918."
In the wiki page stonehenge the article explains that his wife gave the site away to the nation. "In 1915 Cecil Chubb bought Stonehenge, through Knight Frank & Rutley estate agents, for £6,000 as a present for his wife. She gave it to the nation three years later."
I know it's only a minor variation but does anyone know which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.47.127 ( talk) 03:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The Cecil Chubb page is correct. Sir Cecil actually purchased Stonehenge for £6,600 on a whim as he believed a local man should own the site. His wife was not pleased with his purchase. He then gave the site to English Heritage and was knighted in 1919 to mark his generosity. I've changed the stonehenge page. Louisejharden ( talk) 18:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The photograph as originally uploaded has a stone on the right which has been entirely removed in a later version. Am I the only person who thinks this is taking image cleanup too far? See the file history at commons:Image:Stonehenge back wide.jpg. William Avery ( talk) 20:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Why does it look surfaced in this image?
When you go on image click go on your browser make it show up
Gaogier ( talk) 19:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The article states "in 1987 they prohibited access within the circle completely. Visitors are no longer permitted to touch the stones, but merely walk around the monument from a short distance." But that's not entirely true, there are about a dozen days each year when visitors can touch the stones under controlled circumstances, I did so in 2005 myself. CoW mAnX ( talk) 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The article still ignores the dubious political motives for banning access to the site and the general harassment of New Age Travellers at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.8.20 ( talk) 16:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
isn't all of "Etymology" and "History" copied word for word from skepticworld.com?
-- AznShark ( talk) 18:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It's nice to see some info on the new dig, but it seems a little out of place in an article that has practically no information about any other archaeological research at the site, and it looks a little uncomfortable as a kind of 'tag on' at the bottom of the page. This dig is no more important than any of the digs that have gone before. Wouldn't it be better to have an 'archaeological research' section including information on the digs throughout the twentieth century within the 'recent history' section? I'll gladly put this together if everyone agrees. Psychostevouk ( talk) 10:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added some detail, combining it with the restoration section, as a lot of excavation was done alongside each phase of the rebuilding. You'll notice a lot of dodgy links and lack of references but I'll get to work cleaning it up over the next few days - but feel free to add refs if you like! Psychostevouk ( talk) 15:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry JzG, but I've undone your edit to the article. This isn't some attempt to annoy you, but I think the external links requires a little more consideration than just deleting a large amount at a time. As the WP:SPAMHOLE article says "The best remedy is to evaluate each link one at a time" and I think that is necessary here. Several deleted links - especially laserscans of the monument by Wessex Archaeology, and Stukeley's text on the stones are important to the article, whilst some that you left including Stonehenge and others are probably more worthy of deletion. Could we discuss this before we make significant edits to peoples ability to learn more about the article? Regards Psychostevouk ( talk) 22:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Pretty good, except I don't think the article on the UFO site about Dark Forces is really acceptable, and the same goes for the photo gallery on the Sacred Destinations site. Oh, and Brian John's stuff on Bluestones, personal website and all that, interesting speculation but I don't think appropriate. I wish Mike Pitts still had his Hengeworld site. Cut those 3 out and it will be fine unless a new site pops up. Doug Weller ( talk) 21:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as this article is about a non-christian topic and in many ways significant to non christians wouldnt it be better to use BC BCe
Dear Sirs, There is a problem with the B.C. dating of pre-historic times. It creates the impression that events are less distant in terms of time passed.One has to add two thousand years each time, and this senseless addition disrupts apt thinking. Stonehenge is five thousand years old. Humans in that neolitic time were starting basic agriculture in Europe. Hunting was still extremely important, particularly in England. There was plenty of wild cattle, dangerous bulls, bears, and perhaps a number of lions. There was war among bands of hunters. One should consider the possibility of Stonehenge being a fort or castle, and an embankment to round up cattle and wild game, to slaughter it easily. The article ignores these facts and should be completed with this reazonable theory. The Sarsen Circle must also be considered a tactical construction, the first castle of History, as defensive core of the embankment. Religious and astronomical purposes of Stonehenge are unsatisfactory as the only explanation of the monument. Please consider this change to the text of the article in Wikipedia. Santiago sevilla ( talk) 13:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I rolled the two sections together, as they collectively consisted of three sentences. I appreciate the need to keep the whole page from turning into some rehash of UFOs and ley lines, but I think we have to acknowledge that the main cultural fascination with Stonehenge is its 'mystery.' Ethan Mitchell ( talk) 17:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The Aubrey Holes were ment to represent the weeks in a year: 56 weeks of 6.5 days as in Babylon 3000 B.C.These numbers should be mentioned in the main article.
I have a theory, we can't know for sure how the stonehenge was built, but seeing as i live in the northern mariana island (Tinian) where latte stones are our version of the stonehenge, i believe that it is possible that humans made them. It sounds ridiculous, but we don't know for sure. I believe superhumans did exist, long before diseases/plagues started to evolve. Think about it! Ndpascua ( talk) 14:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Whilst I do like the main image for this article (its a good angle and has a lovely brooding sky), it is a shame that in order to remove the people from the shot the far right stone has been removed, but a car and shed between the rightmost standing stone and trilithon have remained. With a quick bit of photoshopping I can remove the car, shed, people, road-sign, speck and small bird in the foreground, but keep the far right stone. I assume that this is ok in Wikipedia (if not please say). What does everyone think about doing this to keep the stones complete but lose the modern stuff? Psychostevouk ( talk) 20:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The rounded appearance of the Heelstone suggests that it is a glacial erratic. Does it predate Stonehenge itself? If so, it might have been something of a mystery to our ancestors. Is it possible that the Heelstone might have served as a catalyst for a construction so grandiose as Stonehenge? Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 19:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
There are theories that the heelstone, along with the nearby Cuckoo stone and Bulford stones (all sarsens - the s is plural) are natural deposits, whereas the sarsens at Stonehenge are most likely from the Marlborough Downs twenty miles away (hence imported to the area). This is mainly borne from the fact that they are unshaped stones, and there is no definitive date for the heeltsones erection. It is possible that the heelstone was a natural deposit in the area, and may have been the basis for building another monument. For example - IF the Cuckoo stone were a natural deposit where it is, then it would seem that Woodhenge and the Cursus were both aligned on it. That doesn't mean the heelstone always stood where it is (the bluestone under it refutes that) but just because early Stonehenge had timber posts, doesn't mean that stone was not allowed in it. Woodhenge had at least 2 stone settings for instance. If the heelstone was a deposit nearby it may have been used as a focus for activities, like the other stones in the area were (both the Bulford and Cuckoo stones had burials around them), and erected at Stonehenge later. Who knows – it might even have originally been located in the centre of the circle – as a deposit - hence construction around it. We don’t know and probably never will. It doesn't mean that Stonehenge was built because the heelstone was there, but it doesn't mean that it wasn't already ritually important in the landscape and came to be used for the construction of the circle. The fact it is unshaped suggests something different from the other sarsens in the circle – although equally this may be because the builders were tired of shaping the stones once they got them to Stonehenge. Virgil, you might also be interested to know that it originally probably had a partner stone next to it, and so wasn’t quite as unique as it now appears. Haven’t got any references for you for this though, but stuff’s out there on it. It’s not really relevant to the article though. Psychostevouk ( talk) 17:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Another question: Depictions and models of Stonehenge usually show it as a complete circle. What evidence indicates that it was, in fact, completed in antiquity? Have most or all of the capstones, for example, been accounted for at the site or in the community roundabout? This would have a bearing on restoration efforts at Stonehenge. I am in favor of restoration, by the way, as long as it doesn't alter or erase the original builders' work. I would love to see the Egyptians reface the pyramids so that we could see at least one of them in its original glory. Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 04:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
He is a bit keen – with the recent dig at Stonehenge I’ve seen his name on every cooments section of online newspaper articles – here’s a good example. Like everyone else Pitts has theories, but they are theories. We will probably never know exactly what Stonehenge finally looked like, or was for. If it (it being a pronoun) was ever a complete circle, we do not know – because we have no record of it like that. It was probably finished – but what does finished mean? The y and z holes probably never held anything – in one sense that implies they weren’t finished. They have infill from the bronze age all the way through to the 14th Century, so they probably filled in over time – not deliberately backfilled during the monuments construction. They may have been waiting for another ring of stones than never arrived. Similarly whilst we can fairly certainly guess that the standing stones were erected in the socket holes making up a complete circle, we don’t know that all of them were capped with lintels. It seems likely that Stonehenge was systematically broken down for various reasons over a long period of time, but for a full half of a complete structure to be missing is quite impressive. The damage is also random (a mix of every type of stone position survives), suggesting that there was never an organised attempt to remove it. The surrounding monuments also show little evidence of deliberate destruction. The stone would have been useful in an area of chalk and little other building material, but it is not an easy stone to work, and of limited value for building. Added to that there isn’t much evidence for the stones in the local area. So it is fair to speculate that Stonehenge was never finished to the same degree as reconstructions show. It is just speculation. I remember reading it somewhere, but I can’t think where now, and I can’t remember who the supporters were – but I do remember the point Benea makes being in it. I have spoken to some archaeologists though, and they accept that it is a possibility – but not necessarily one that they promote. Virgil asked a question, I gave him my answer. It’s not a case of original research or anything, and I wouldn’t start making noises about including it in the article without referencing it. It’s just an answer to a question. Psychostevouk ( talk) 17:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks like the dates need adjusting. [1]-- Doug Weller ( talk) 14:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
Similarities of Stonehenge to passage graves like Bryn Celli Ddu or dolmen portals suggests a question: Is it possible that Stonehenge is the incomplete or eroded remains of a large late-neolithic passage tomb? Stonehenge does stand in the middle of a large grave yard. The orientation of the Trilithon horseshoe to the Summer Solstice is like that of some passage graves. Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 08:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)zbvhs
I tried editing this section as I thought it seemed a bit wrong, until I realised that it actually seems to make no sense at all and thought I'd better discuss it first! From the first para of 'History':
What exactly is this referring to? Does the 'Stonehenge complex' refer only to the main monument itself (roughly 3000-1500BC) or does it include such monuments as the Cursus (3500 BC- maybe 2500BC). If so that's a rough max of 2000 years, not 3000. Although Stonehenge shows plausible evidence of adaptation as late of the Roman period, it's not proven and not mentioned here, so we can't include that. All we have is the scroll trench (maybe 700BC). But that's still only 2500 years, unless there may have been something there before that I haven't heard of? Although the bones in the ditch are older than Stonehenge they can hardly be classed as an earlier feature. The Mesolithic post holes from 8000BC would indeed push the life of the monument to 6500 years if we accepted an end to the adaptation at 1500BC (thus killing the 3000 year bit), but its fair to say that they aren't part of Stonehenge (Stonehenge being everything inside the ditch and bank, which they are not - the post holes are a significantly earlier monument nearby). Might I recommend an amended para:
Any thoughts?
2 other points: Unfortunately with the removal of the semi protection vandalism seems to be up again. Also, this years Stonehenge Riverside Project seems to have been one of the best ever. No refs yet, but if everything comes out as it seems to be this page may require some heavy rewrites next year! Regards Psychostevouk ( talk) 18:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was writing it as an adaptation to the original para that didn't make much sense (the complex bit) so I wanted to distinguish between Stonehenge (the monument from 3000-1500BC comprising of everything within the ditch and bank) and everything else in the landscape. I thought it fitted with the new sentence then expanding to the landscape. Just thought it made the differentiation clearer. Changed it now but it can easily be removed if everyone thinks it should.
Looking at the history page I do think semi protection is justified, although I have no idea how to do this. Normally I'd go find out but I suspect you actually need to be an admin to do this. anyone know? Psychostevouk ( talk) 08:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I've put in a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. See what happens. I'm sure anyone looking through the history of the article would sympathise! Psychostevouk ( talk) 16:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure most of you will have seen this fairly sensationalist headline from the BBC claiming Stonehenge was started in 2300BC. For my own part I think this sort of work should be carefully considered before anyone over enthusiastically re-writes great swathes of the article. Geoff Wainwright and Tim Darvill dated a former bluestone socket. This doesn't necessarily mean that it was the first such stone socket at Stonehenge. In fact, a perfectly decent report from the Stonehenge Riverside Project has pointed out that the sarsens were raised much earlier. For my own part I'm unsure how Geoff and Tim have inferred that this one socket is the earliest at Stonehenge, and whether they, or the BBC decided that this pinpoints Stonehenge's beginnings. They don't even reveal which particular arrangement it is from - if it's the inner bluestone circle (which is where the trench appeared to be situated) then it has always been believed that this was the final bluestone arrangement - not the first. I think Harami2000's edit is perfect as it incorporates the latest findings but doesn't confuse things unnecessarily. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of academics react to this story... Just my 2 cents. Regards Psychostevouk ( talk) 09:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's more "news" on the BBC website. Not quite sure as to the method of incorporating both those p.o.v.s vs. the conventional viewpoint, but extending that opening section is probably still a sound approach and explaining that the dates below are for that conventional chronology? Any other ideas? :) Harami2000 ( talk) 18:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)