Excavations at Stonehenge May Answer Questions

Smivs writes "The BBC are getting set to fund a dig at Stonehenge in Wiltshire, England. The two-week dig will try to establish, once and for all, some precise dating for the creation of the monument. An article from the BBC news website explains how the dig will investigate the significance of the smaller bluestones that stand inside the giant sarsen pillars. 'Researchers believe these rocks, brought all the way from Wales, hold the secret to the real purpose of Stonehenge as a place of healing. The researchers leading the project are two of the UK's leading Stonehenge experts — Professor Tim Darvill, of the University of Bournemouth, and Professor Geoff Wainwright, of the Society of Antiquaries. They are convinced that the dominating feature on Salisbury Plain in Wiltshire was akin to a "Neolithic Lourdes" — a place where people went on a pilgrimage to get cured. Modern techniques have established that many of these people had clearly traveled huge distances to get to south-west England, suggesting they were seeking supernatural help for their ills.'"

Comments

An alternate interpretation

[Harmonious Botch]

Pardon me, but I'm skeptical when I hear all of the sweetness and light interpretations. How about something more bloodthirsty, but just as reasonable?

A significant proportion of the newly discovered Neolithic remains show clear signs of skeletal trauma. Some had undergone operations to the skull, or had walked with a limp, or had broken bones. Slaves, kidnapped in other parts of England, forced to work building the monument. They had lots of skeletal injuries because it was dangerous work. ( Impromptu graveyards near the Egyptian pyramids had lots of crunched skeletons also )

...sacred circle at the monument is dominated by bluestone chippings... Theses were war trophies, brought home and shattered to destroy their magic.

Re:An alternate interpretation

[pclminion]

Advanced medical technology? Magic? These don't seem to go together...

The ability to precisely cut into the skull, combined with a possibly entirely coincidental therapeutic effect, does not indicate "advanced medical technology." Relieving intracranial pressure can lessen the degree of brain injury, yes -- but there is nothing to suggest that trepannation was carried out because of this understanding. It was most likely carried out in a belief that it allowed evil spirits, gasses, or whatever else, to escape the skull.

In other words, it is a sign of magical belief, not a repudiation of it.

Re:"as a place of healing"

[jd]

For 90% of Slashdot, its the reason for being. For Slashdotters familiar with British archaeology, there is also a certain level of malice. Many sites in Britain were plundered for treasure by the profession, destroying much. That's why Silbury Hill needed emergency repairs - the damage was about to destroy the remains. We also remember Woodhenge, whose postholes were pumped with concrete, destroying any archaeological data to be had. We remember Seahenge, where the site was destroyed and then the notes kept secret (so when a fire destroyed the warehouse they were in, the data was lost forever). We remember listed monuments, such as a Napoleonic wall in Derbyshire, being illegally destroyed with English Heritage remaining silent. We remember English Heritage destroying more than a few ancient buildings themselves. We remember the campaign to drive a road underground by Stonehenge, which would have destroyed the very sites they are now uncovering.

I think, from what I've seen, that this work is competently done. But to trust an archaeologist much beyond that is asking a lot.

Re:"as a place of healing"

[Anubis350]

We remember Seahenge, where the site was destroyed and then the notes kept secret (so when a fire destroyed the warehouse they were in, the data was lost forever)

Links? All I can find is that English Heritage moved the site, under controversy (mostly, it seems, by modern "druids" who have no connection to whatever religion or culture built the site, and no idea of it's original purpose), to be preserved instead of allowing the sea to destroy it. It was studied, and the findings were published in Nature. It's going to be open to the public, preservation work now done, this month in Lynn Museum, near the original site.

So, do you have any proof to this or any other claim, or are you just trolling?