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.'"
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.
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?
Why are you skeptical? It's pretty well-known that primitive tribes were peace-loving herbivores who lived in harmony with Nature. It wasn't until the white man came and introduced war and slavery that these tribes came to know such things.
You were modded funny but you bring up a really good point about the myth of the noble savage. There are mass kill sites all over North America where various American Indian tribes stampeded thousands of buffalo over cliffs in order to get a few hundred pounds of meat. I doubt very much that there was much in the way of ancient, mystic, natural magic going on. The average life span of a Neolithic man was somewhere in the range of 29 years.
It's even worse. Massacring buffaloes, well, I guess some animal rights people would be appalled, but it's really no worse than a modern slaughterhouse. (Though, granted, it does disprove the myth of the enlightened herbivore living in harmony with nature.)
The worse thing is: we have plenty of proof that they massacred each other just as well.
E.g., there are remains of a village in Sand Canyon Pueblo which was, effectively, exterminated by some attackers in the 13'th century. (I.e., centuries before those guys saw a white man at all.) The attackers literally slaughtered everyone where they could catch them, smashed whatever they could smash, and burned the village down. It was never re-occupied.
While that's admittedly a rather extreme example, simple raids to steal each other's food and women were a lot more common. As little as 13% of the tribes could count as "peaceful", in that they only raided their neighbours no more than once a year. So they killed a few, had a few of their own killed, life went on.
Plus, here's an interesting thought for the noble savage proponents: if those tribes were so peaceful and living in harmony, how'd they get a warrior culture in the first place? You don't get a seafaring culture if you're on a mountain top, and you don't get a warrior culture if you're a peaceful confederation of tribes.
Or long before Stonehenge or any contact with the white man, in Nubia there's a 12,000 year old cemetery where half the people had died of violence. It would be another 8 millennia or so until their conquest by Egypt, or 7 until Egypt itself got united by force, so it's hard to blame it on learning violence from the Egyptians.
Just about the only "bright" side is that there's little evidence of neolithic slavery. They just killed male prisoners. If you were lucky, they'd kill you quickly and eat you. If not, they'd slowly torture you to death. (The Iroquois, for example, among many others, were pretty good at it.)
Women were usually bounty of war, though, so I guess by modern standards it would count as sexual slavery. That practice continued all through the bronze age and early iron age (i..e., as late as ancient Greece and early Rome), by which time though it was properly filed as slavery. (Though still considered perfectly normal and civilized warfare.) Of course, the places which had remained tribal and largely stone age, continued it well after the fall of Rome.
The history of Europe and Middle East is funny too in that aspect, in that we have the iron age catastrophe. We still don't know exactly what happened there, but whole cities were razed (and some never recovered or were abandoned and never rebuilt), whole populations displaced or enslaved, and generally it's destruction on an unprecedented scale. Europe rushed into the iron age arguably prematurely (bronze was still tougher than early iron) because, whatever happened there, thoroughly disrupted the tin trade, and created a bronze shortage.
And for a parting thought, here's a funny one: population losses in modern warfare are measured in single digit percent. The USA lost some 0.32% of its population in WW2, the UK 0.94%, Germany lost a whopping 10.47%, and the big hit was the USSR with a whole 13.71%. (And in the USSR, probably half of them were due to Stalin's catastrophic leadership, so they could have been avoided.) The average for all countries involved is 3.70%.
Well that's peanuts compared to tribal warfare. By tribal warfare standards, anywhere between 25% and 60% of the population would be killed in the nearly continuous raids and fighting. Roll that around in your head. You'd be anywhere between 2 and 5 times more likely to die in a war as a member of some "noble savage" tribe, than in the USSR during WW2.
Heck, even Leningrad in 3 years of siege, famine and bombing, lost about a third of its population. And we see that as a major tragedy. (And rightfully so.) Now think this: in many tribes you'd be more likely to be killed in tribal war, than if you happened to be in Leningrad in WW2. Now that's a scary thought.
"...remains of a village in Sand Canyon Pueblo..."
My understanding (IANAPA I am not a pre-historic anthropologist) is that current speculation about the Sand Canyon Pueblo history is that there was some evidence of cannibalism by the Sand Canyon people over a long span of time, preying on neighboring tribes. The inference is that the neighbor tribes either finally got strong enough or fed up enough to resist, annihilate the Sand Canyon residents completely, and declare the place evil enough that nobody would ever live there again.
And in the USSR, probably half of them were due to Stalin's catastrophic leadership, so they could have been avoided
No, most of losses in USSR were civilian losses on occupied territories. Military losses don't even come close.
It's a "little known" fact, but nazis wanted to exterminate Slavic people along with the Jews. For example, in Belarus alone about 3 million people were killed by nazis.
Last I've seen some numbers, it was closer to 50-50 between civillians and soldiers. That's including the 5 to 8 million USSR civillians killed in the Holocaust. Well, ok, maybe closer to 60-40, but still, the military deaths do come relatively close AFAIK. Still, I see your point. But more importantly, you illustrate an aspect that I failed to: that it took some senseless mass murders of epic proportion to come even to 13.71% number. If that senseless extermination policy on one side and Stalin's own terror
'Average life span' can be extremely misleading due to the high levels of infant mortality which really hit average life span figures hard.
Even in ancient times there are records of people living to 100 and it wasn't that uncommon for many to live into their 50's, 60's and even 70's. It's just that for everyone who lived to 70, several would also die at an age of only 6 months or so.
The people that settled Europe were likely black or brown, and over time lack-of-exposure to the sun caused their skin to fade to white or pink.
(Dark-skinned humans would have suffered vitamin C deficits in colder, darker europe, leading to an evolutionary pressure in favor of light-skinned persons who absorbed more light through their skin & survived longer.)
The injuries were inconsistant with Stonehenge-type construction, mostly very standard Neolithic injuries. The skull modifications are known from elsewhere as very primitive surgery with an amazingly high survival rate. They've found evidence of healing from the cranial modifications and they've found the tools used - superior to anything less than modern surgical steel. They also have the settlement where the workforce lived and are able to show that the workers were not the ones buried. Also, the Neolithic people were bigger on stealing magic for their own use than destroying it. This is backed up by the fact that those blue stones were deliberately quarried for Stonehenge (they found the quarry). You don't make an enemy something they can use so that you can destroy it... unless you're from Fox News or SCO. In short, the bloodthirsty theory doesn't hold with the available data.
Advanced medical technology? Magic? These don't seem to go together...
Advanced medical technology and medicine-man magic do not go together, and I seriously question the interpretation being given on those grounds. Medical experts (for the time) would not have relied on 250-tonne talismen. Now, if someone were to suggest that this was a national hospice or retirement home, where nobody seriously expects to physically recover but where some sort of emotional "recovery" was desired in their final days, that
2000 B.C. - Here, eat this root. 1000 A.D. - That root is heathen. Here, say this prayer. 1850 A.D. - That prayer is superstition. Here, drink this potion. 1940 A.D. - That potion is snake oil. Here, swallow this pill. 1985 A.D. - That pill is ineffective. Here, take this antibiotic. 2000 A.D. - That antibiotic is artificial. Here, eat this root
Advanced medical procedures do not = advanced knowledge. Maybe they drilled the holes to let out the evil spirits affecting the patient...who really knows for sure?
Okay, any time someone mentions trepanation, I have to tell my trepanation story. I went to a conference on psychedelics called Mindstates in Berkeley back in '01. Lots of interesting presentations, but by far the most... intense was a presentation by a woman who had drilled a fucking hole in her own head and made a home movie showing her doing it. This was back in the seventies, and her anthropology professor had a theory that trepanation allowed blood to flow through the brain like it does through an infan
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.
Sometimes the explanations of the day didn't make complete sense, but they weren't always entirely superstition either. Take the practice of bleeding as a medical treatment. Nosebleeds can be a symptom of high blood pressure; seeing a nosebleed, the medieval doctor thinks "this fellow has too much blood and it's forcing its way out, let's remove some of it and relieve the pressure"... which reduces blood pressure, if only temporarily. I'd guess the idea of trepanning came from something similar -- the patien
Surgeons have experimented with flint scalpels made by modern flint knappers and found them as sharp as surgical steel, easy to sterilize and better at holding their edge. I don't have a cite, but I remember from many years ago reading about a flint knapper who ended up having tools he made used for his own cardiac surgery. Yes, it's quite possible for neolithic medicine men to have better surgical tools than anything less than the best modern steel, even if their understanding of the human body left something to be desired.
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 )
Yes, that's certainly more bloodthirsty. But it doesn't answer the question of why it was built. That would just answer part of the who.
Yeah you must be right, I am sure the researchers have no idea what their talking about and came up with their ideas whilst throwing back beers at the pub in Amesbury.
"Theories about Stonehenge are cheap; proof is precious," commented BBC Timewatch editor, John Farren.
The interpretations are what the physical evidence points to, it was almost certainly a religious structure after all.
Not that I disagree with you...
But this statement reminds me of things said when we first started investigating ancient writing - that writing was used almost exclusively for religious purposes.
Or so we thought until we started translating the stuff - then we found it was mostly tax records....
Indeed, now we can get finally down to the business of figuring out "who they were" and "what they were doing." Not to mention important followup questions like: "where are they now, the little people of Stonehenge? And what would they say if we were here tonight?"
If our ancient ancestors were alive today, I think the biggest thing on their minds would be "why is it so dark in here?" (with apologies to Terry Pratchett)
Indeed. Although Pratchett wasn't the first to make that joke.
But more in the spirit of today, we should, as a society, build a <really big monument> as mysterious and long-lasting as possible, just to jerk around our long-off descendants.
I hear they tried to, but a discrepancy with the units used to measure the thing set in string an unfortunate chain of events. The band built a model of stonehenge to practice to, but in doing so unlocked the inner dark magic of stonehenge, unleashing an army of angry dwarves that devoured the drummer. The band were quoted as saying they would feel worse if they weren't sedated, but nonetheless could not go on to do the soundtrack.
I know, it's the evil site [kuro5hin.org], but you'll find every link I could find from the Timewatch team and the BBC. The Timewatch website gets daily podcats from the dig and hourly news bulletins, so this is no minor event.
The Grauniad [guardian.co.uk] has an excellent description of the dig and what they expect to find. Knowing they are making such a small dig and that holes are involved likely means they used GPR to sweep the area and find sections of ground that were clearly disturbed in ancient times and were about the right size and depth.
the guardian newspaper has a long and noble tradition of publishing typos
as such it is refered to by the private eye [private-eye.co.uk] rather amusingly as "the Grauniad".
In case you are unfamilar with the eye, it is a satirical magazine, at one time owned by Peter Cook, that is best known in the UK for being sued for libel when printing things that later turn out to be completely true about certain politicians
I didn't know you could actually get the 'exact date' it was built. I bet they built it on a thursday. Not monday, because nobody wants to do any serious work after the weekend. I know I don't. Not tuesday because that's Take Your Kid to Work day, so they can only make little Stonehenges. Maybe Woodhenges. Then they spend all wednesday cleaning up after the kids and deciding never to do that again (even though they always have another one). On friday, everyone leaves early so they can't get yelled at all weekend by their bosses and clubbed to death. And nobody works on Saturday and Sunday. Only crazy people. That just leaves thursday because they eventually get guilty about not doing any work and decide to do something.
Of course there was no wood left. Woodhenge suffered the same fate as Strawhenge. Big bad wolf blew them down and three little piggies were relocated into the projects.
(How this story lasted this long without an Eddie Izzard reference is beyond me)
isn't this a bit simplistic? I imagine that over the thousands of years, it was used for many purposes, built, rebuilt, rearranged, burned down, fell over, THEN sank into the swamp. wait where was I?
I lived in Amesbury for a short while (I'd say a stonesthrow away from Stonehenge), Avebury circle is much more interesting, plus it has a pub in the middle with a haunted well. After getting drunk, you can stagger down the road to Silbury hill and fall asleep at the top.
It's a hypothesis that they're testing.. Why does everyone on Slashdot think that they know better than the people who spend their free time studying this stuff?
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.
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 [bbc.co.uk]. It's going to be open to the public, preservation work now done, this month in Lynn Museum [bbc.co.uk], near the original site.
So, do you have any proof to this or any other claim, or are you just trolling?
Bias is unavoidable. As long as there are other people studying to prove different theories, we'll be fine. Our main trouble would be if everyone unites behind a single theory, then we don't get anywhere unless completely incontrovertible evidence is (accidentally) discovered disproving it.
AKA "English mindless bureaucracy and cultural vandalism ltd."
English heritage is the thing we have that, had it existed at the time, would have prevented every single one of our ancient monuments from being built. They also employ people who, not to put too fine a point on it, lie about buildings and monuments in order to get them included in the scope of English Heritage. These are the plonkers who waited till Michael Eavis (he of Pilton Festival fame) had restored the Pilton Tithe Barn, then Grade A list
An alternate interpretation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:An alternate interpretation (Score:5, Funny)
Why are you skeptical? It's pretty well-known that primitive tribes were peace-loving herbivores who lived in harmony with Nature. It wasn't until the white man came and introduced war and slavery that these tribes came to know such things.
Parent
Re:An alternate interpretation (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
It's even worse (Score:5, Interesting)
The worse thing is: we have plenty of proof that they massacred each other just as well.
E.g., there are remains of a village in Sand Canyon Pueblo which was, effectively, exterminated by some attackers in the 13'th century. (I.e., centuries before those guys saw a white man at all.) The attackers literally slaughtered everyone where they could catch them, smashed whatever they could smash, and burned the village down. It was never re-occupied.
While that's admittedly a rather extreme example, simple raids to steal each other's food and women were a lot more common. As little as 13% of the tribes could count as "peaceful", in that they only raided their neighbours no more than once a year. So they killed a few, had a few of their own killed, life went on.
Plus, here's an interesting thought for the noble savage proponents: if those tribes were so peaceful and living in harmony, how'd they get a warrior culture in the first place? You don't get a seafaring culture if you're on a mountain top, and you don't get a warrior culture if you're a peaceful confederation of tribes.
Or long before Stonehenge or any contact with the white man, in Nubia there's a 12,000 year old cemetery where half the people had died of violence. It would be another 8 millennia or so until their conquest by Egypt, or 7 until Egypt itself got united by force, so it's hard to blame it on learning violence from the Egyptians.
Just about the only "bright" side is that there's little evidence of neolithic slavery. They just killed male prisoners. If you were lucky, they'd kill you quickly and eat you. If not, they'd slowly torture you to death. (The Iroquois, for example, among many others, were pretty good at it.)
Women were usually bounty of war, though, so I guess by modern standards it would count as sexual slavery. That practice continued all through the bronze age and early iron age (i..e., as late as ancient Greece and early Rome), by which time though it was properly filed as slavery. (Though still considered perfectly normal and civilized warfare.) Of course, the places which had remained tribal and largely stone age, continued it well after the fall of Rome.
The history of Europe and Middle East is funny too in that aspect, in that we have the iron age catastrophe. We still don't know exactly what happened there, but whole cities were razed (and some never recovered or were abandoned and never rebuilt), whole populations displaced or enslaved, and generally it's destruction on an unprecedented scale. Europe rushed into the iron age arguably prematurely (bronze was still tougher than early iron) because, whatever happened there, thoroughly disrupted the tin trade, and created a bronze shortage.
And for a parting thought, here's a funny one: population losses in modern warfare are measured in single digit percent. The USA lost some 0.32% of its population in WW2, the UK 0.94%, Germany lost a whopping 10.47%, and the big hit was the USSR with a whole 13.71%. (And in the USSR, probably half of them were due to Stalin's catastrophic leadership, so they could have been avoided.) The average for all countries involved is 3.70%.
Well that's peanuts compared to tribal warfare. By tribal warfare standards, anywhere between 25% and 60% of the population would be killed in the nearly continuous raids and fighting. Roll that around in your head. You'd be anywhere between 2 and 5 times more likely to die in a war as a member of some "noble savage" tribe, than in the USSR during WW2.
Heck, even Leningrad in 3 years of siege, famine and bombing, lost about a third of its population. And we see that as a major tragedy. (And rightfully so.) Now think this: in many tribes you'd be more likely to be killed in tribal war, than if you happened to be in Leningrad in WW2. Now that's a scary thought.
Parent
Re:It's even worse (Score:4, Interesting)
My understanding (IANAPA I am not a pre-historic anthropologist) is that current speculation about the Sand Canyon Pueblo history is that there was some evidence of cannibalism by the Sand Canyon people over a long span of time, preying on neighboring tribes. The inference is that the neighbor tribes either finally got strong enough or fed up enough to resist, annihilate the Sand Canyon residents completely, and declare the place evil enough that nobody would ever live there again.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's a "little known" fact, but nazis wanted to exterminate Slavic people along with the Jews. For example, in Belarus alone about 3 million people were killed by nazis.
I included those, yes (Score:3, Insightful)
But more importantly, you illustrate an aspect that I failed to: that it took some senseless mass murders of epic proportion to come even to 13.71% number. If that senseless extermination policy on one side and Stalin's own terror
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Even in ancient times there are records of people living to 100 and it wasn't that uncommon for many to live into their 50's, 60's and even 70's. It's just that for everyone who lived to 70, several would also die at an age of only 6 months or so.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Heh. Clever what you did there.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
(Dark-skinned humans would have suffered vitamin C deficits in colder, darker europe, leading to an evolutionary pressure in favor of light-skinned persons who absorbed more light through their skin & survived longer.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Dark-skinned humans would have suffered vitamin C deficits in colder, darker europe
It's actually Vitamin D, (the body can't make vitamin C), but otherwise you're completely correct.
Re:An alternate interpretation (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Advanced medical technology and medicine-man magic do not go together, and I seriously question the interpretation being given on those grounds. Medical experts (for the time) would not have relied on 250-tonne talismen. Now, if someone were to suggest that this was a national hospice or retirement home, where nobody seriously expects to physically recover but where some sort of emotional "recovery" was desired in their final days, that
Re:An alternate interpretation (Score:5, Funny)
1000 A.D. - That root is heathen. Here, say this prayer.
1850 A.D. - That prayer is superstition. Here, drink this potion.
1940 A.D. - That potion is snake oil. Here, swallow this pill.
1985 A.D. - That pill is ineffective. Here, take this antibiotic.
2000 A.D. - That antibiotic is artificial. Here, eat this root
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:An alternate interpretation (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:An alternate interpretation (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trephining [wikipedia.org].
Advanced medical procedures do not = advanced knowledge.
Maybe they drilled the holes to let out the evil spirits affecting the patient...who really knows for sure?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This was back in the seventies, and her anthropology professor had a theory that trepanation allowed blood to flow through the brain like it does through an infan
Re:An alternate interpretation (Score:4, Funny)
Or perhaps vampires.
Parent
Re:An alternate interpretation (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd guess the idea of trepanning came from something similar -- the patien
Re:An alternate interpretation (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's certainly more bloodthirsty. But it doesn't answer the question of why it was built. That would just answer part of the who.
Re:An alternate interpretation (Score:5, Funny)
I think that was Pete Townshend.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that I disagree with you...
But this statement reminds me of things said when we first started investigating ancient writing - that writing was used almost exclusively for religious purposes.
Or so we thought until we started translating the stuff - then we found it was mostly tax records....
It would be cool.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It would be cool.... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:It would be cool.... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But more in the spirit of today, we should, as a society, build a <really big monument> as mysterious and long-lasting as possible, just to jerk around our long-off descendants.
Re: (Score:2)
The BBC andTimewatch are running this bigtime (Score:4, Informative)
Just saw... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
as such it is refered to by the private eye [private-eye.co.uk] rather amusingly as "the Grauniad".
In case you are unfamilar with the eye, it is a satirical magazine, at one time owned by Peter Cook, that is best known in the UK for being sued for libel when printing things that later turn out to be completely true about certain politicians
They're going to find the plans (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How Many Date Nuts in a Bowl? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
(How this story lasted this long without an Eddie Izzard reference is beyond me)
over time (Score:4, Funny)
Stonehenge is overrated (Score:4, Interesting)
"as a place of healing" (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like they've already made up their minds.
Of course, this could be bias introduced by the uninformed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"as a place of healing" (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:"as a place of healing" (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [bbc.co.uk]. It's going to be open to the public, preservation work now done, this month in Lynn Museum [bbc.co.uk], near the original site.
So, do you have any proof to this or any other claim, or are you just trolling?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
British Knockoffs of Irish Originals (Score:2)
I say that the British just copied an Irish model, instead of schlepping all that rock across the Irish Sea.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Insufficiently rude about English Heritage (Score:3, Interesting)
English heritage is the thing we have that, had it existed at the time, would have prevented every single one of our ancient monuments from being built. They also employ people who, not to put too fine a point on it, lie about buildings and monuments in order to get them included in the scope of English Heritage. These are the plonkers who waited till Michael Eavis (he of Pilton Festival fame) had restored the Pilton Tithe Barn, then Grade A list