Slashdot Mirror


Huge Ritual Arena Discovered Near Stonehenge

New submitter pabloApicco writes: A row of 90 megalithic stones has been found buried beneath a grassy bank only two miles from the world-famous site of Stonehenge in Wiltshire, England. Believed to have been a huge ritual monument, the long line of megalithic stones lies 3 feet underground, and was found using sophisticated radar equipment. “What we are starting to see is the largest surviving stone monument, preserved underneath a bank, that has ever been discovered in Britain and possibly in Europe,” said Vince Gaffney, an archaeologist at Bradford University who leads the Stonehenge Hidden Landscape project. “This is archeology on steroids.” Here's a satellite map of the new site.

26 of 126 comments (clear)

  1. Re:That's cool. by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Informative

    the map link sucks.

    would be fine if it outlined the area and placement or something.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  2. Or, on the lighter side... by Rei · · Score: 4, Funny
    --
    You don't exist. Go away.
  3. Pre-Historic Particle Accelerator by Greyfox · · Score: 2

    They were working on a particle accelerator, but were interrupted.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Pre-Historic Particle Accelerator by gtall · · Score: 3, Funny

      Giorgio Tsoukalos is one of the finest deep thinkers the planet has ever produced. One can tell just by looking at the electric hair. Where Einstein failed to find the Grand Unified Field theory, Giorgio has partially succeeded: Aliens run the entire universe secretly. This is only partially true, cats rule the Aliens and hence us.

  4. Re:Hmm by peon_a-z,A-Z,0-9$_+! · · Score: 5, Funny

    Millennia after the impending nuclear war, archaeologists (under a different name in some new language, presumably "fjjakkjalers") will unearth evidence of a giant ring 27km in circumference on what is now the Franco-Swiss border.

    Finding various "artifacts" (perhaps called "harahalnangs" in the future language), the fjjakkjalers will construct a 'theory' of polytheism, since the different sizes of identical tools found repeatedly throughout the site were obviously connected to many gods of different sizes.

    Upon further inspection, they might see that this giant ring had fragments of a tube throughout its circumference, perhaps alluding to the passage of some material through this tube in the shape of small balls ("balls" in the future language), which would have been identified as a form of torture yet to be fully explained by the torturers of the future ("internet commentators", in the future language).

  5. Re:That's cool. by wheelbarrio · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is claimed to be a Neolithic structure; the earliest evidence of horse domestication in Britain is from Bronze Age times, military use even later.

  6. Re:That's cool. by gtall · · Score: 2

    I think the researchers are missing the obvious explanation, structures like this were community toilets. The ring shape was so the Druids could exchange news of the day.

  7. Re:That's cool. by JMJimmy · · Score: 2

    Those types of defenses would have similar effects for both horse and infantry attacks so it could be it's just meant for the latter. Stones cut the attack area in half/funnel attackers between them causing "log jams", ditches have two effects, first sudden drop offs in terrain force attackers to either slow down or risk injury by jumping down and second cause a slowdown as they try to climb up the far side and sets them off balance for defending forces to more easily dispatch them. Horses or not it suggests a permanent military encampment of some sort.

  8. For Ritual Read ... by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 2

    the word "Ritual" in archeology is shorthand for we don't know what this was for perhaps it had some ritual purpose ?

    --
    Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    1. Re:For Ritual Read ... by Xest · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That describes the topic of "History" in general.

      I recall watching a documentary about how they now thing Tutankhamun died.

      It was the most absurdly convoluted story I've seen involving him falling off the back of a chariot and landing in just the right manner to fracture his leg, for him to then have been up on his knees (despite his leg being fractured) and then getting hit by the wheel of another chariot at just the right angle to do some damage to his chest followed by a further bunch of random reasons why he then had to be buried quickly.

      And that's okay, theories are good, but the problem is there was absolutely no real worthwhile evidence at all - they'd effectively created evidence to match their theory, rather than found evidence to back up their theory. They created this convoluted bodged computer simulations that were like "If it just hits him like this then you get this sort of damage!" - great, I can also think of a thousand other ways and things that could hit him just like that to create that damage which I could also simulate, why is your chariot one correct? He could just as well have been smacked around the leg with a club "in just the right way" by someone beating him to death, and then smacked even harder across the shoulder "in just the right way" and ended up in the exact same state with a completely different theory about the rapid burial, like it beginning to rain and thunder that day and the burial guy just wanting to get the job done and clock off home early so he can get his washing in that he left outside to dry before it gets too wet.

      But I find this typical when watching history programmes, a "Historian" comes up with a theory and then makes up some evidence to show why their theory is right. There's a common lack of conclusiveness to their evidence, and it's possible to come up with a thousand other theories and fudge evidence in the same way, none of which has any more reason to be correct than the other.

      It feels like in many cases history has become one of the most horribly unscientific subjects out there, it's become about story telling, you make up a story and then pretend something shows something conclusively (even though there's no conclusiveness at all) and declare yourself the world expert on that aspect of history. It seems to have become a modern day snake oil industry - you make up a fancy story, and just declare it true with supporting evidence that's entirely circumstantial or in itself just wholly made up or theoretical and unproven.

      Long gone is the truth of the "History is written by winners" saying, nowadays history is written by anyone with a pet theory that they simply declare to be true true. Evidence and scrutiny not required. Bonus points if you write up your theory into a book and sell it as the self-described "leading work on the subject".

      Fact is, with a lot of history, as you imply, we simply have absolutely no fucking idea what went on or why and at best we're just making shit up.

    2. Re:For Ritual Read ... by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      Doesn't stop holocaust deniers.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    3. Re:For Ritual Read ... by dave420 · · Score: 2

      You are confusing the subjects "history" and "history as portrayed in a TV show". Don't. When you lash out at "history as portrayed in a TV show" but call it "history" you will look rather foolish. As you just found out.

    4. Re:For Ritual Read ... by cavreader · · Score: 2

      There is a fairly recent documentary called Stonehenge Empire where they detail the newest archeological finds showing Stonehenge was a relatively small part of a much larger complex of stone structures, fences, and burial sites. The burial sites include evidence of people traveling from the European continent to be buried at that site which helps support that the idea that the site was religious or spiritual in nature.

  9. Just hotels for bugs by HxBro · · Score: 2, Funny

    My daughter plays with stones all the time in the garden, building hotels for bugs apparently, all these stones are just some bored kids trying to out do each other a few thousand years ago, it started off as a hotel for bugs (probably big alien ones - I've seen starship troopers), and now the "experts of the day" decide it's a place of ritual or worship...

  10. Re:Hmm by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Funny

    Millennia after the impending nuclear war, archaeologists (under a different name in some new language, presumably "fjjakkjalers") ...

    Ég, fyrir einn, velkomin nýja íslenskum okkar overlords.
    (I, for one, welcome our new Icelandic overlords.)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  11. Re:How does it compare to Gobekli Tepe? by JMJimmy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Göbekli Tepe is 300m diameter, this one is ~475m diameter

  12. Re:Hmm by known_coward_69 · · Score: 2

    it's like junk DNA in 15 years ago and dark matter now. religious rituals is the catch all we don't know what it is term for archeologists

  13. Re:Hmm by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

    Fjjakkjalers is of course not Icelandic. And its formation is not Icelandic either - you don't see "jj", and the -ers sounds Dutch or something; in Icelandic, groups of people usually end in -menn (ex. Bandaríkjamenn), -endingar (ex. Íslendingar), or -ar or -jar, esp. verjar (ex. Frakkar or Pólverjar).

    What you're trying to say is something like "Sjálf(ur) fagna ég nýjum íslenskum harðstjórum okkar" (er (TH)að ekki?). What you wrote was something sort of like "I, for the benefit of the number one, welcome(adjective) new(different declension) Icelandic(yet another different declension) our overlords (not an Icelandic word)"

    --
    You don't exist. Go away.
  14. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Isn't it a bit arrogant of you to assume that rituals are not important?

  15. Re:That's cool. by Rei · · Score: 2

    There's no reason why a person would go through the effort to haul such massive stones when they could build an equivalent wall out of smaller ones.

    --
    You don't exist. Go away.
  16. Re:That's cool. by JMJimmy · · Score: 2

    There's no reason why a person would go through the effort to haul such massive stones when they could build an equivalent wall out of smaller ones.

    Physics 101: 200lbs man vs large rock: large rock wins. 200lbs man vs pile of small rocks: man wins.

    Besides the obvious, this wasn't a wall. Think of it like primitive hedgehogs (not the animals). The goal isn't to wall yourself in but put obstacles in the way.

  17. Re:That's cool. by JMJimmy · · Score: 2

    Physics 101: 200lbs man vs large rock: large rock wins. 200lbs man vs pile of small rocks: man wins.

    Not according to every stone wall built throughout human history. There's a reason they're made out of smaller (albeit still heavy) rocks: it's far, far more practical.

    a) Not a wall
    b) Small stone walls, if piled, would need to be nearly as wide as it is tall to have the same effect. These rocks are up to 4.5m tall which means you'd need ~5,000 1x1x1 stones vs ~200 large stones. Since 1x1x1 stones aren't that common you'd probably be looking at closer to 20,000 stones.
    c) Every stone wall built throughout human history that was narrow, tall, and unsupported was easy to knock over because: physics.

  18. Re:That's cool. by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 2

    This would only make sense if there was anything of value inside the stone structure that is worth protecting - but there isn't. There's no remnants of housing or a castle or anything inside the semi-circle. You don't just take your army up the hill and park it inside a stone circle to protect it from invaders - you have to *also* protect your farms, cattle, granaries, etc.

    There's more chance it's a ritual site or calendar than some sort of defensive structure.

    --
    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
  19. Re:Wot? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2

    >> long line of megalithic stones lies 3 feet underground

    I believe they meant 3 INCHES underground.

  20. typical British builders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    They said they would be back on Tuesday to finish it!

  21. Re:Hmm by Kyont · · Score: 2

    A moose once bit my sister...

    --
    You shall see a cow on the roof of a cotton house.