Talk:Stonehenge

Heelstone

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

Well, shame on you, sjc! G of M may not be the most reliable of sources, but he never wrote either of the two stories attributed to him in this article. Gerald Hawkins in his book, Stonehenge Decoded, discusses Geoffrey's passages that touch on Stonehenge, and expresses a bit of surpise that this admittedly less-than-reliable source does foreshadow some information that only careful research some 700 years later would corroborate.

The problem with G of M's work is that at face value he reads like a pathological liar about Wales, Cornwall and Britain in general; but when one starts comparing what he wrote with the traces of legends and folklore that predated him, one is surprised how little he fabricated. J.S.P. Tatlock, in his book Legendary History of Britain, is clearly skeptical about what G of M writes, yet finds constant proof that Geoffrey has adapted pre-existing traditions in his writings. Was he just lucky in what he invented? Or did he actually incorporate Breton and Welsh traditions of his age in his writings? Frankly, I'll confess to thinking it is the latter, but only because having read his Historia Regum Britanniae with an unprejudiced eye, it is clear where G of M fabricates, & where he is appears to repeating local traditions.

I won't belabor the fact that Geoffrey has received more skepticisim than he deserves: think of him as the Jean Auel of his age, who was not above rewriting the fruits of his research in order to either push forward his own agenda or to tell an entertaining story. -- llywrch 02:12 Dec 1, 2002 (UTC)

The "Hele Stone" and "Heel Stone" names for Stone No. 96 at Stonehenge were abandoned over twenty (20) years ago by geologists, geophysicists, and archaeologists who worked the site. English Heritage literature clearly shows that "Heelstone" has been and is the accepted style and spelling among scientists. Herewith four (4) authoritative published works about Heelstone - we can Talk:Debate Sjc and Llywrch to great depth the slough of names for this infamous 'sardine stone' (my favorite), but the correct Encyclopedia name for Stone No. 96 is styled and spelled "Heelstone" by Prehistoric Society, English Heritage and British Academy authors, and Stonehenge excavators.

1. On the Road to Stonehenge: Report on Investigations beside the A344 in 1968, 1979 and 1980, edited by T.C. Champion, assisted by John G. Evans, by Michael W. Pitts, with contributions from Hilary Howard, Alister Bartlett and Andrew David, PROCEEDINGS OF THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY, Volume 48, 1982, ISSN 0079-497X, "Heelstone" (Stone No. 96), "Heelstone" Ditch, Plate 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, pp. 75, 76, 78, 79, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 98, 101, 102, 106, 107, 108, 110, 112, 121, 122, 123, 125, 127, 128.

2. Stonehenge in its landscape, Twentieth-century excavations, Rosamund M J Cleal, K E Walker, and R Montague, with major contributions by Michael J Allen, Alex Bayliss, C Bronk Ramsey, Linda Coleman, Julie Gardiner, P A Harding, Rupert Housley, Andrew J Lawson, Gerry McCormac, Jacqueline I McKinley, Andrew Payne, Robert G Scaife, Dale Serjeantson, and Geoff Wainwright, ENGLISH HERITAGE, 1995, ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT 10, ISBN 1850746052, Index 603, 608, Plate 7.2, "Heelstone" (Stone 96), pp. 25, 26, 166, 269, 270, 271, 272, "Heelstone" Ditch, pp. 11, 12, 25, 26, 269, 270, 271, 274-6, 275, 321, 324.

3. Proceedings of the British Academy . 92, Science and Stonehenge, Edited by, Barry Cunliffe & Colin Renfrew, Published for The British Academy, by OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1997, ISBN 0197261744, Index 351, 355, "Heelstone" (Stone 96), pp. 15, 16, 28, 79, 155, "Heelstone" ditch, pp 29, 30, 82.

4. Hengeworld, Mike Pitts, C, CENTURY . LONDON, 2000, ISBN 0712679545, Index 402, 403, Stonehenge, "Heelstone", pp. 8, 96, 135, 139, 145-50, 154, 229, 266, 275, 7, 138, 146, 230.

GENERAL ENQUIRIES: English Heritage, Customer Services Department, PO Box 569, Swindon, SN2 2YP, England, Email: Customer Services, Telephone: +44 (0) 870 333 1181, Fax: +44 (0) 1793 414926, Email National Monument Record (NMR) enquiries, Telephone: +44 (0) 1793 414600, Fax: +44 (0) 1793 414606 [1]

Garry W. Denke, Geologist/Geophysicist

Garry Denke 22:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Benea, please stop changing the Devonian Senni bed Old Red Sandstone formation Altar Stone in the Stonehenge article to "Silurian"-Devonian, the Altar Stone (no. 80) and the Heelstone (no. 96) at Stonehenge are not Silurian. Thank you! 76.182.220.150 17:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow you kids (Dragons flight, Benea, et al) have been having a lot of fun. You are quite right 76.182.220.150, the Altar Stone (no. 80) at the center of Stonehenge is not Silurian, it is a Devonian Period sedimentary Old Red Sandstone from the Cosheston micaceous Senni Bed Formation of South Wales according to English Heritage [2] and the British Geological Survey [3]. The wiki Stonehenge article currently stands in error, sadly Adamsan Adamsan is not around to correct Benea's mistakes anymore. O well... Garry Denke 22:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a reference then. Benea 22:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Three references above. Please provide your references. Regretfully Adamsan Adamsan is not here to stop to your vandalizing behavior. Please stop vandalizing the Stonehenge article Adamsan Adamsan developed. The Heelstone (no. 96) and the Altar Stone (no. 80) are not "Silurian". Please, you and/or your vandalizing buddy, Dragons flight, provide your two (2) recent references otherwise, or correct your mistakes. Thank you! 76.182.220.150 05:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care if it was or wasn't Silurian. However you and your father (User: Garry Denke) have been identified as hoaxers, and been caught attempting to add erroneous material to this and a number of articles to push your own theories in violation of WP:NOR. If you (or anyone one else can prove it wasn't Silurian, then the information can go in the article with my blessings. If not then it has no place in this encyclopedia. You need references to add material, not to remove it. Unreferenced material may be challenged and removed at anytime. --Benea 11:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Pappy removed "Silurian", Benea added "Silurian": Therefore; demand for Benea reference is hereby made again. 76.182.220.150 15:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't really an issue of adding/removing material, it is a disagreement over a matter of fact. Given that User:Garry Denke has a history of making claims about Stonehenge that are considerably outside the mainstream academic consensus, I am not inclined to take his word over this. I've removed two controversial adjectives to leave something that everyone can agree on, pending the provision of sources. --Cherry blossom tree 17:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither of the links you give support your assertions. If you can provide sources that do then you are welcome to do so. --Cherry blossom tree 14:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You have an unusual method of using talk pages. Please add your comment after the person you are replying to rather than inserting it into someone else's comment, while also removing another part of that comment. I'll repeat myself, however. You are possibly right, but you need references. Claiming that various organisations support your position does you no good unless you can point out where they support you. Otherwise anyone could simply claim that God agrees with them and he outranks the British Geological Survey. --Cherry blossom tree 08:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Tutu? OMG, John's hilarious! Altar Stone's Devonian. Garry Denke 19:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The source you quote is uncertain on the origin of the Altar Stone: "...[the] degree of deformation may indicate that they are older than the Devonian. As their origin remains unknown it is still not possible to provenance them."--Cherry blossom tree 08:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And rightly so, she's not that smart. Garry Denke 15:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

This online dictionary [4] says "Sunday" - I've changed the Heelstone article -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Pictures of Stonehenge

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)

Cecil Chubb

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)

Stone removed from illustration

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)

I noticed that too. It does seem a little bit excessive - especially as the stone could have been kept when the person was removed from the image. Psychostevouk (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Surfaced

Why does it look surfaced in this image?

• http://witcombe.sbc.edu/sacredplaces/images/stonehenge.jpg

When you go on image click go on your browser make it show up

Gaogier (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that link works? Benea (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've got it now. There could be a couple of reasons, one is that it is an old picture, taken when there was some surfacing down, which was later removed and the path repositioned. Another is that it has been laid down for a special event or occasion. Or it could be that it is a computer generated image or plan for an idea that was not implemented. As you can see in other pictures of the site, the monument is not surfaced as shown in that photograph. Benea (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Access

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)

Four days each year to be exact and only for a short period. The summer and winter solstices and the spring and autumn equinoxes. And only for the period around the rising of the sun. But the article could do with mentioning that as well I suppose. Benea (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it may be a bit more than that, this is the tour group I went with in 2005, I wanted to add it as a reference but I was concerned it might come off as spam: http://www.londontoolkit.com/tours/stonehenge_special_access_tours.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoW mAnX (talk • contribs) 20:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

English Heritage provides a better reference. It's quite easy to get into the circle before and after closing. Psychostevouk (talk) 21:39, 16 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)

That's because that's POV and of dubious relevance here. Benea (talk) 16:43, 21 February 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)Signed by Santiago Sevilla Historian.

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)

Plagarism?

isn't all of "Etymology" and "History" copied word for word from skepticworld.com?

--AznShark (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The other way around it seems. A version more or less like the version at skepticworld.com has existed on wikipedia since 2004, whilst by skepticworld.com's copyright tag (which is rather invalid now, since it's not theirs to copyright), theirs has been there since 2006. Benea (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

New Dig

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)

A welcome addition: it's a bit WP:RECENT as it stands.--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I noticed that when I put the new information in but haven't had time to get out my Hengeworld book and work on it! If you'll do it, great.Doug Weller (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll get to work, and hopefully have something in a few days. Just thinking that it might be hard to separate the antiquarians from recent archaeology, so it might have to go outside of 'recent history', but we can worry about that later. BTW, I'll probably make loads of gaffes so prepare to tidy it up! Psychostevouk (talk) 11:24, 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)

Actually most of the refs I've used are in the bibliography, and I've added a new one. I'm not very good on judging where citations would be needed, so if anyone wanted to highlight them I can source them later on. Hope everyone likes the text - theres so much info about it though that it could easily grow. Psychostevouk (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's an important aspect and the previous cover in the article wasn't very generous. Big improvement! --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Moonraker. Out of curiosity, I'd always assumed years should be linked (seen it in so many other articles). Should we avoid it? Psychostevouk (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Seemingly we should, unless there's special significance. Policy here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks Moonraker, I'll bear that in mind Psychostevouk (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A much improved article, thanks. And thanks to Old Moonraker too for pointing out the policy on linking years, as I've never seen that before but have been unwilling to do myself when editing.Doug Weller (talk) 20:21, 6 April 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)

External Links

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)

I do agree with JzG that some of the external links are a bit off, so how about this as a more compact list? I've removed the ones that seemed to be basically either echoing the Wikipedia article, or echoing each other (there were 2 links to Stonehenge - Today and Yesterday!), and those that seemed like commercial sites. I've moved a few to more relevant articles. I don't think there's any fringe views or unworthy links here that aren't academically relevant, and I think it provides a better range of additional information or detail on some of the less well covered bits of the article. Equally though some people may like some of the removed ones, or find this list too long or too short, or some of the links inappropriate. What do you all think? Psychostevouk (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Stonehenge English Heritage - General information.
• Stonehenge Landscape The National Trust - Information about the surrounding area.
• Stonehenge, a Temple Restor'd to the British Druids By William Stukeley, at Sacred Texts.
• Stonehenge, and Other British Monuments Astronomically Considered By Norman Lockyer, at Sacred Texts.
• Stonehenge Today and Yesterday By Frank Stevens, at Project Gutenberg.
• The History of Stonehenge BBC animation of the monuments construction.
• The Bluestone Enigma A theory about the bluestones as glacial deposits.
• Stonehenge Laser Scans Wessex Archaeology information about the scanning of the Sarsen carvings.
• Stonehenge Photo Gallery Images of the monument.
• How They Rebuilt Stonehenge Images and information about the reconstruction of the Stones.

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)

I fully understand your points. I admit I didn't realise that the Bluestone site was a personal site, but a quick Google reveals what may be a more appropriate link. I think it's worth keeping something about Glaciation because it is a bit of a hot topic. I originally kept the UFO site because it was the best I could get from a google search, and the credits at the bottom are legit enough. However, looking up through the talk pages reveals an alternative link, but with no pictures which is a shame. Personally I think I'd prefer the UFO site, but thats just my opinion. The gallery site is just cosmetic really, but maybe wikicommons has enough for it. Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Council for British Archaeology English Heritage press release about the monuments reconstruction.
• Glaciers and the bluestones of Wales British Archaeology essay about the bluestones as glacial deposits.

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)