Talk:Stonehenge

Use of BCE & CE

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

What's the difference? The common era is synonymous with the era of Christ. Both date from the same event. What's the point of calling it BCE except to deny that the 'common era' began with the birth of Christ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.212.68 (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, "CE" and "BCE" would be far better. It is virtually entirely accepted by historians was not born on the year 0, and because in general, Stonehenge is more significant among the historic and Neo-Pagan communities, I think that the non-Christian system would be more appropriate. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

What's this about it being a non-Christian may of dating and so more appropriate to a monument that is 'more significant among the historic and Neo-Pagan communities' - err than who? English heritage and the National Trust, as well a lot of the scholarly works quoted use BC. The MoS says not to change from one style to the other without a good reason. Assuming that you know who will be more interested in this article isn't really enough justification. Benea (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I prefer bce and find that archaeologists commonly use it as do a lot of religious writers (the IP address above needs to read Common Era), Benea is correct. I get annoyed by people who try to change to BC though when there is no reason except their religious preferences, I don't think we can change this if it was originally AD/BC.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sirs, There is a problem ith 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)

Please read WP:VERIFY - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and only reports what verifiable reliable sources have said. We don't add things to articles because we think they are interesting, possible, etc, but only because they are significant views reported elsewhere. No speculation, no original research, read WP:OR as well, thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Function and Construction

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 Fuction of Stonehenge should be revised. As a 'henge" it was a ditched enclosure, with two main purposes, first to gather wild game, such as deer, wild cattle and boar, that had been rounded up and chased into the den by hunters. Second but not least fuction, it should be seen as a fort against enemy hunters, in territorial confrontations. The mega stones were brought in to complete de defensive castle as core of the henge, for last stand against enemies, with the new tactical advantage of those immense stone shields, embeded and erected with lintels so inteligently, into the Sarsen Circle, as to offer advantage in a fight with axe, bows and arrows, as well as lances. This has been overseen by scientists too eager to find mystic or astronomical motives for Stonehenge's existence, ignoring much more elementary needs. There is a number of facts which support the theory of the henge as an enclosure to drive in herds of wild animals such as red deer, wild cattle and boar. Antlers have been found within Stonehenge, and animal bones, axes as well, all dated around tree milennia B.C. Engravings in some stones show axes. The "swiss" archer found in a ditch at Stonehenge is a hunter and a warrior, when judged by the objects surrounding him. What scientists have thought to be remains of cremation, could well be rests of cannibalic feasting on enemy hunters. The fact that Stonehenge is aligned with sun and stars does not hinder the building having the function of a fortress, and of an enclosure for game rounded together from the Salisbury plane. The Sarsen Circle has to be studied for its tactical function in a time where warring weapons were mainly bows and arrows, lances and axe. An army of belicose hunters must have brought the great stones from Wales, to build this first castle of History, embedding the megalits as shields against attackers, thinking of the sun as ruler of light. Such an enormous embankment cannot be only a cemetery or necropolis for a few remains of humans, but a place of very practical endeavour, such as the slaughter of wild cattle, deer and boar, already introduced in the enbankment or henge after a chase. Religious activity was simultaneus, no doubt, but of less urgent importance. One must avoid mystification, although Stonehenge inspires it. I invite scientists to kindly consider these views... (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Santiago sevilla (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Santiago, please just sign with 4 tildes (~)- you can click on them below the line where you save the page. Also, this page is not meant to discuss editors' ideas about Stonehenge, it is not a forum. We can discuss how to organise the article, references, etc, just not our own personal ideas. I'll put some links on your talk page. Doug Weller (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Main image

File:Stonehenge back wide edited.jpg

Photoshopped version of Nojhans image

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)

Sounds like a good idea to me.Doug Weller (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, someone has put the rock back in the original image! Psychostevouk (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Heelstone Question

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)

I believe that some archaeologists have suggested that it may be a natural deposit, whilst the other sarsens were imported to the area, hence the fact that it is unshaped. Atkinson believed that some bluestone that he found below it suggested that it was erected at the same time as the bluestone circle, although that admittedly doesn't tell us where it may have been originally. Psychostevouk (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Pitts says the sarsens (actually the name of the type of stone is sarsen) are all local stones. The Heelstone is also sandstone, so I assume it is just unshaped sarsen. It is phase 3a, (phase 3 came before that) and certainly not the inspiration for Stonehenge (which started as a wooden structure). --Doug Weller (talk) 09:21, 4 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)

Full Circle

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)

There isn't really any evidence. All records of it show it as an incomplete circle, and we have no way of knowing how it may have looked in pre-history. Some archaeologists do seriously suggest that it was never finished. Apparently there is too little in the surrounding communities to account for a complete circle. For my own part, the fact that there is little evidence that the other monuments in the area do not appear to have been deliberately destroyed during the Iron and Roman periods and beyond, (whilst Stonehenge seems largely ruined suggests) something Psychostevouk (talk) 07:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What archaeologists suggest 'it' (what's 'it'?) wasn't completely finished. Pitts certainly calls 3ii a once perfect circle of 30 stones. And I'm afraid I on't understand your last sentence, could you please rephrase it? Thanks. --Doug Weller (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The surrounding circle of sarsens was never completely capped with lintels for one thing. At least one of the surviving uprights could never have supported a lintel since the time it was put in place, so the images of an outer circle capped with a continuous ring of lintels are wishful thinking. There was at least one gap and quite possibly more. Benea (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why Pitts says differently. He says 30 lintels.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The culprit is stone 11, which Atkinson found was too narrow to have supported lintels. The two sarsens on either side were fitted with the customary knobs to fit the socketed lintels, so the intention was certainly there. The theories were that it had broken and was once larger, but Atkinson found this not to be the case. Pitts seems to have fudged the issue, implying a wooden rather than a stone lintel, but it is still a contentious issue. Benea (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Just a side issue, one problem with researching the geology of Stonehenge, the Heel stone, etc on the web is the ubiquitous and just plain made Garry Denke, posting at times as Yahweh & other names or even claiming to be me, on every forum there is about its geology and the fact he owns it - and the Ark of the Covenenant under the heelstone. --Doug Weller (talk) 17:25, 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)

Garry's been active on here as well - a case was eventually filed here at WP:AN/I and he has been quiet for a while now. It's usually a good idea to maintain a watch though on some of his more actively interested pages, but I suspect he's realised that wikipedia has stricter guidelines than an online message board. As to everything else that's been discussed, the answer is probably no, Stonehenge was never classically finished as some of the more fanciful reconstructions like to depict, but it is a matter of on going debate. It shouldn't detract from the monument that this might be the case though. I agree that as it stands this should remain the topic of discussion here rather than appearing on the article page itself. As to Virgil's original question though, I'm fairly sure that there is no question of really trying to restore Stonehenge any more than it is. Future work will probably be to ensure the preservation of the monument rather than trying to recreate a historical ideal that may never have existed. Benea (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

He's been posting almost obssessively on Usenet to sci.archaeology (as Yahweh), many threads in which he is the only participant. This started (again) just a few weeks ago. I'll make sure I'm watching any appropriate articles just in case. I wouldn't want anyone to try to restore Stonehenge, but there is a guy in Australia building a replica! And as you say, the discussion is best left here.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Revised Stonehenge chronology

Looks like the dates need adjusting.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please use links on talk pages. - RoyBoy 16:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)