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 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)

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)

Jesus Christ says that Jeremiah Ezekiel (the Son of man) buried the gold Ark of the Testimony below the Heel Stone, together with the gold Mercy Seat, the gold Table for the Shewbread, the gold Candlestick, the gold Ephod-Girdle, the gold Breastplate, and the gold Altar of Incense. Jesus Christ (the Son of man) says that He moved the Altar Stone to the centre of Stonehenge 'round about year 586 BC' (radiometric 586 BCE preferable). Love and blessings, YHWH Allah. Garry Denke 16:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garry Denke (talk • contribs)

Excellent and informative stuff for the article Garry. Please can you provide some references to this exciting and astonishing information so that we can add them instantly to this encyclopaedia of fact and ensure that generations after us can continue to learn the exciting and varied history of this surprising monument.

You do have some references don't you? Psychostevouk (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

So 586 BC? Or 586 BCE? John 17:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In all seriousness, my personal preference would be to use BC. In the great majority of the texts or books I've read about Stonehenge, that is the system that is used. Although it is obviously based on a religious principle, BC/AD goes beyond religion nowadays so I think it would be a mistake to argue for its removal based on this being a non-Christian topic. Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The calendar in my house says 2008, that's the year I associate myself being in, so that's a year I can more easily understand in an article. It's not about being Christian because I am anything but that, it's about the most easily understood and most commonly used terms, which is the system it's currently being used in. To change the dates to be accepted more by a minority who is much more likely to know the date translations anyway, while alienating the massive majority of people who use the universally accepted dates, would be insane. 76.95.58.104 (talk) 05:25, 14 October 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 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.

We don't know that that is exactly what they were for. It's only a theory. If you can find a reference for it, then it might suit either the Aubrey holes or the Theories about Stonehenge articles. I think it may be a little too fringe to mention here as this article largely deals with known facts. Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 07:46, 13 September 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)

In your Garry Denke advertisements you should add His "universal magnetic reversal" that I will be conducting on Heelstone Ark excavation day at Heelstone Ark exhumation hour. That way your Garry Denke advertisements will Full Circle this universal 783,000-year-old magnetic (geologic) age. Love and blessings, YHWH Allah Garry Denke 12:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garry Denke (talk • contribs)

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)

Tomb?

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

It seems unlikely that Stonehenge was meant to become a passage grave, as there is no evidence of earthworks beyond the ditch and bank, and it doesn't explain why the stones were transported such a distance (graves and long barrows seem to have been constructed from local materials - hence around Salisbury Plain they usually had wooden chambers). Although you are correct about the sun alignments, which seem to have been a feature of grave sites like Newgrange. Seeing as the latest evidence seems to suggest that Stonehenge was built as a burial site, this might be worth mentioning in the article if a decent linking source can be found. Although strictly speaking the original orientation of the earthworks was a little off of the solstice's.... Psychostevouk (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Pocket watch

As a tangent (modern culture reference?) Stonehenge has been used as basis for a [pocket watch http://www.retrothing.com/2005/09/the_druids_pock.html] --18:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Stonehenge complex?

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':

The Stonehenge complex was built in several construction phases spanning at least 3000 years, although there is evidence for activity both before and afterwards on the site, perhaps extending its time frame to 6500 years.

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:

Stonehenge itself evolved in several construction phases spanning at least some 1500 years. However there is evidence of large scale construction both before and afterwards on and around the monument that perhaps extends the landscapes time frame to 6500 years.

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)

Any objections to me changing it then? Psychostevouk (talk) 07:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good change to me. And it is certainly time that semi-protection was put back. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment - what does the word "itself" add to the sentence? Stephenb (Talk) 08:32, 17 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)

Semi-protection really should be put back (I have no idea how to do this either!). The last dozen attempted edits have all been vandalism, mostly by repeat vandals. Surely enough is enough? Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Working through how to do it now.....Psychostevouk (talk) 14:47, 2 October 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)

Stonehenge has been given semi protection for one month, so hopefully that'll slow some of the edits down. See what happens in November I guess! Psychostevouk (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

New Dates

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)

Thanks, Psychostevouk, and agreed; no /totally/ new chronologies quite yet! The introductory paragraph appeared to be an appropriate point at which to place a note rather than consider wholesale amendments across the article and no problems with any tweaking required to that wording to emphasize or reflect well-founded views as the situation develops. Cheers, David. Harami2000 (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

On that note, I've just reverted an edit from an anonymous user based on that report, then I saw this thread. The previous version seemed better, but this isn't my area so I'll defer to the "regulars". In any case, the US English in that edit needs to be changed to UK (the style of this article) as per MOS - that's what caught my attention. Cheers Freestyle-69 (talk) 00:20, 23 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)

From my personal point of view, I find this project far more credible than the Darvill and Wainwright one! However, much as I would like to amend everything here to the new viewpoint (joke), it's worth noting that there is no radiocarbon dating for this. I think a fair bit of detail should definitely go into the Aubrey Hole page, and maybe a little here. I might be more inclined to put it in the Stonehenge 1 (ca. 3100 BC) section, perhaps with an amended line in the intro para - something like:

Archaeologists had believed that the iconic stone monument was erected around 2500 BC, as described in the chronology below. However some theories suggest that the first stones were not erected until 2400-2200 BC, whilst others suggest that bluestones may have been erected at the site as early as 3000 BC. (see phase 1 below).

That sentance could probably use a little work though. It's early and I haven't had any tea yet! Psychostevouk (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Restoration

Been musing on this para for a while.

Restoration

From 1901 to 1964, there was much restoration of the monument, however this was sometimes criticised, with one historian claiming that "'What we have been looking at is a 20th century landscape, which is reminiscent of what Stonehenge might have been like thousands of years ago. It has been created by the heritage industry and is not the creation of prehistoric people. What we saw at the Millennium is less than 50 years old".

I don't really think that it adds anything to the article as there's a big section on research and restoration below. It's also a little POV (created by the heritage industry, realistically it was restored not created). The other problem is that the 'historian' isn't quite the noteworthy source you may expect when reading it - he's an archaeology student. If he was an author or archaeologist maybe, but a student interviewed for an article doesn't seem like someone who should be referenced for such a statement. Any thoughts on just deleting this section? Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with its removal. Reads too much like POV to me. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Done! Psychostevouk (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)