Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Stonehenge As a Royal Family's Burial Site

Posted by kdawson on from the my-stone-is-bigger-than-your-stone dept.

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."

19 of 124 comments (clear)

  1. Alright!! An article about... by Hankapobe · · Score: 3, Funny

    Spinal Tap's stage background!

  2. Why Stonehenge? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Its always baffled me why Stonehenge gets all the attention, when there's a much more impressive stone circle and causeway monument four times the size only 20 miles away at Avebury - and its hardly been investigated!

    1. Re:Why Stonehenge? by kestasjk · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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);
    2. Re:Why Stonehenge? by wass · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Avebury's circle is larger in area, but Stonehenge has a much denser organization of sarsen stones, and just looks much more majestic IMHO. Additionally, Stonehenge has actual henge stones (ie, the top crosspieces), which originally circled the whole structure but only a few still remain intact.

      Also, the Stonehenge sarsens were transported from their quarries several hundred miles away, which is pretty amazing and makes you seriously wonder what the hell was so special about this site to justify such a long haul.

      But maybe I'm biased, as my wife and I just visited Stonehenge about two months ago on our honeymoon.

      --

      make world, not war

    3. Re:Why Stonehenge? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Why Stonehenge? by tsm_sf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
    5. Re:Why Stonehenge? by fyoder · · Score: 3, Informative

      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. Also check out the Callanish Standing Stones on the Isle of Lewis if you get the opportunity. Perhaps not quite as impressive as Stonehenge, no lintels, but if you go in the off tourist season, you may be able to have them all to yourself. To be alone with something like that affords a deep feeling of connection with the ancient past.
      --
      Loose lips lose spit.
    6. Re:Why Stonehenge? by Puggs · · Score: 3, Informative

      people have been touching those stones for thousands of years, why should we stop now?

      At the risk of sounding like a pretentious hippy, theres nothing I like doing better than hugging one of the stones when I'm at Avebury - you can see all the tiny little nooks and crannies, some of which have random crystals etc in.

      Stonehenge *IS* a tourist trap, theres nothing there but the stones and a gift shop. Avebury on the other hand has a quaint little biker pub, the biggest henge in the world, which imho is more impressive than the stones at stonehenge.

      Yes I've been to both repeatedly - the best time to go to stonehenge is overnight at one of the solstices, when you CAN get up to the stones - with all drums,chanting,bongos etc it feel like your thousands of years ago.

      I was at avebury last weekend for my birthday - the kids love it, rolling down the henge, playing on the stones etc. Far more enjoyable than the "stand at a distance and look" experience at stonehenge.

      The henge at stonehenge is just a dip in the ground - the henge at avebury is massive, and far more impressive than the remains of the stone cirles there.

      Anyway, enough ranting :) - if you get the chance go back to both as an adult, take your family to Avebury on a sunny day, its a good (and cheap) afternoon out

    7. Re:Why Stonehenge? by ozbird · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its always baffled me why Stonehenge gets all the attention

      In a word, trilithons. Stone circles are impressive, but raising large lintel stones and fitting them with mortise and tenon joints to the even larger sarsen stones is very impressive.

      Spinal Tap references aside, there's something about the trilithons that is deeply iconic: a mastery of stone, and thus nature. The later use of arches, vaulted ceilings and domes in religious buildings is no accident; people may not "get" religion, but suspend several tonnes of stone over their heads and they can't help but be impressed.

    8. Re:Why Stonehenge? by wish+bot · · Score: 4, Informative

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

      And no, I'm not joking.

      --
      lemonade was a popular drink and it still is
    9. Re:Why Stonehenge? by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
  3. Sure sure.... by Rooked_One · · Score: 3, Funny

    Anything to discount the alien theory

  4. Re:Oh, that one! by AnotherUsername · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
  5. Poor, as per usual by MLCT · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Poor, as per usual by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Worse yet, who says that it was built for this? It's not unheard of that "holy sites" have been recycled over and over in history. Many cathedrals are built on ancient sites of worship.

      Take the Nebra sky disk. It is almost certain that it changed its use and purpose over time, as can be seen by the changes it underwent during its use. It's even possible that the last "user" of the disk had no idea of its astronomic significance and it became some sort of idol for ancient worship.

      Dynasties and rulers come and go, land and property changes hands in times of war. And rarely does the defeated tell his nemesis his holy secrets. Why shouldn't some victorious tribe conquer the area of Stonehenge and, in ignorance of its actual reason, attribute it to some divine or otherworldly creation? After all, chauvinism isn't something we invented in our time, would a victorious warlord attribute the creation of something as impressive as Stonehenge to a tribe he just conquered? He'd have to admit that the people he defeated created something he does not understand.

      And what better place for a royal burial site than a place where the gods themselves built something?

      So just simply saying that some place is "merely" the tomb of a king just because someone was buried there is cheap. Especially if there are indicators that point towards scientific use.

      But there our chauvinism sets in again. How could some barbaric culture that can, at best, use stone axes be scientifically "advanced", to a point we "civilized" people didn't achive until medieval times?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. human nature's not so different... by owlnation · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So maybe I've read too much Dostoevsky over the years... but I never buy the explanations for what people think these things were.

    Visiting some dolmens in France a few years ago the archaeologist explained that it was believed these were religious sites, since visitors had to bow low to enter a womb-like chamber. Sure... or... how about the small entrance is easier to heat, easy to keep dry, easier to defend, and easier to keep out animals like rats etc away from food stores. For all we know the dolmen was the first equivalent of Walmart.

    Homo Sapiens is, for the most part, a selfish, greedy species. To ascribe our ancestors with cuddly, noble airs of spirituality, science and mysticism is the stuff of fairy tales, not science. Take a look at your neighborhood; minus the styles, the cars, and the pointless obsession with worthless things like social networking sites, the species is today just and evolved and spiritual as it has ever been. If anything, we've progressed (slightly) in terms of abolishing slavery, women's right etc.

    Seriously, the first Walmart is more likely than some solar temple. I'll buy a royal burial site admittedly, that's just naked greed. That's pretty much what we humans are good at, especially the ones at the top of the social order.

    1. Re:human nature's not so different... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is likely that ancient buildings had far more often practical uses rather than esotheric ones. But our ancestors were often also quite adapt at combining those reasons. Mostly to make people do it.

      Religion, IMO, was invented for just this reason: To make people do stuff you, as a leader, know is important for the well being of your tribe, but you can't really explain to your people because they either don't understand it, or they'd outright oppose it because for them, as an individual, it may have negative effects. Let's face it, we're selfish. Everyone wants everything for himself and doing things for the "common good" is something reserved for when you're doing REALLY well and have no real problems anymore, so you do some feelgood stuff. And in ancient times, you rarely if ever were doing so well that you have no problems anymore.

      But as a ruler, it can be quite useful to know the right times for sowing and reaping. Too early and your grain is dying in the last freeze. Too late and it won't grow long enough. So you have to put aside a few people who watch the skies and do astronomy. That creates two problems for your tribe. First of all, the question why should I work so this moocher gets fat and lazy watching the skies, and second, why should I build him his astronomy tools (which often included a lot of stone lugging back then) on top of it? Sure, we'll know the best time for sowing in the future but guess what, I'm 20, I almost certainly won't live to be 30, I have no benefit at all from it!

      This is where religion and all those "religious" buildings came in. It also served as a quite good tool to keep your people in line, too. Especially if you can predict (and claim to command) such impressive events like an eclipse.

      I'm fairly sure this is the reason why astronomy is one of the oldest sciences mankind invented. It was practical for an early tribe to predict the seasons. It's not that they were so fond of the stars, it was a matter of survival.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. hmm.. by robably · · Score: 3, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our Neolithic Lourdes.

  8. Re:Nothing to do with the current royal family by mabinogi · · Score: 3, Informative

    The current British Royal Family are descendants from a French Invasion of England made in 1066 AD No they're not.
    They're Germans, from the house Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (the English branch of which being renamed to Windsor when having German sounding names didn't make you popular), and before that, house Hanover (since the early 18th century).
    And even before that it was far more complicated than simply being descendants of William I
    --
    Advanced users are users too!