Slashdot Mirror
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."
It doesn't look as impressive, and is almost completely ruined, whereas stonehenge has always survived to some degree.
I'm not sure why you consider Avebury more impressive. I've been to both as a child and I was more impressed by stonehenge.
That having been said there are more impressive burial sites, which are earth mounds which have caves that go underground, and are lit up by natural light only on certain days of the year.
They were certainly more impressive to visit, if not visually impressive.
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
Visiting Stonehenge is like visiting a museum. There are certain areas you can and cannot go, times you cannot be there, and the path ends in a gift shop.
Avebury is an actual village surrounded by megaliths. More standing stones line a very nice walk/hike to the area, and there are burial mounds all over the place (some have been hedgehogged and look really cool). There are (incredibly kitschy) stores in town selling info of various kinds, and a visitors center set up to demonstrate what life was like back in The Day(tm).
In comparison the whole Stonehenge experience feels tightly controlled and 'artificial'. I can't really justify that word but you may understand what I'm getting at.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
I went to Orkney about two years ago and there are standing stones all over the place. I was a bit dissapointed by Skara-Brae (WTF is the deal with the tinnted glass over the top). However after visiting Orkney the guy who owned the B&B we were staying at near Joh-o-Groats told us about an old archeological dig on some mounds near the cliff that the B&B was overlooking. So when we were leaving we thought we would have a look, sure enough there was a maze of ruined huts just like the ones at Skara-Brae, only there were lots more rooms and passages. The whole site was overgrown by weeds but you could walk over them and reveal the flintstonesque shelves and the 'bait boxes' in the floors. We spent the whole morning doing the "Indiana jones" thing and didn't see another soul.
We travelled all over the UK for about 5 weeks, Orkney, Stonehenge and a stone circle somewhere high up in the Yorkshire dales were the most awe inspiring, but the little huts on the cliff overgrown and forgotten for 5000yrs were my favotite.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.