Stonehenge As a Royal Family's Burial Site

mikesd81 sends in a report from Newsday about radiocarbon dating of cremated bones excavated from Britain's Stonehenge that, an archeologist said, has solved part of the ancient mystery surrounding the 5,000-year-old site: It was a burial ground for what may have been the country's first royal dynasty. No word on how this work relates to the "Neolithic Lourdes" theory we discussed earlier. "The new dates indicate burials began at least 500 years before the first massive stones were erected at the site and continued after it was completed... The pattern and relatively small number of the graves suggest all were members of a single family. The findings provide the first substantive evidence that a line of kings ruled at least a portion of southern England during this early period. They exerted enough power to mobilize manpower necessary to move the massive stones from as far as 150 miles away and [maintained] that power for at least five centuries, said archaeologist Mike Parker Pearson of the University of Sheffield, leader of current excavations at the site... His findings will also appear in the June issue of National Geographic and in the television special "Stonehenge Decoded," to be shown Sunday."

Comments

Re:Oh, that one!

[AnotherUsername]

Henge

Stonehenge is type of henge. There are many, many henges, and not all of them are in Britain. There are even henges in America, one of the more famous ones being at Cahokia Mounds and is called 'Woodhenge'.

So, to answer your question, yes, there is more than one.

Re:Why Stonehenge?

[Richard_at_work]

You went to both as a child? Go back as an adult and I guarantee you will change your mind. Stonehenge looks like it does because it has been rebuilt several times in the past 100 years - whether they actually are representative of how they stood thousands of years go is still subject to discussion.

The best thing about Avebury is that its not a stage managed tourist trap - you simply park your car and go wandering, you can even touch the stones if you wish and theres no entrance fee. The sheer size of the monument is fantastic.

Poor, as per usual

[MLCT]

It was a burial ground for what may have been the country's first royal dynasty "country" - didn't exist 5,000 years ago, patchy local tribes, communities and chiefdoms were all that exsisted, often as small as a couple hundred people.

"first" - nope - there were thousands of years of these patchy clans and communities going back far before 5,000 BP - the Stonehenge neolithic communities and any political, cultural or religious "leaders" there weren't the "first" anything.

"royal dynasty" - Firstly it wasn't royal - that is a modern definition, and can only be used when it means what it says, I see the FA uses it as well, and it should be rightly criticised for inaccurate reporting. We know little concrete about how stone age societies functioned - far too little to use the word "royal". Secondly there is no evidence that it is a "dynasty" of anything.

Historical accuracy seems to becoming abandoned these days. The media seem to becoming more and more able to get away with just making up anything they want to fit the "angle", particularly with scientific pieces.

Re:Why Stonehenge?

[wish bot]

The best thing about the Avebury circle is that there's a pub in the middle of it.

And no, I'm not joking.