This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
"Archaeologists believe the standing stones were erected around 3200 BC and the surrounding circular earth bank and ditch, which constitute the earliest phase of the monument, have been dated to about 3100 BC."
3200 BC is obviously earlier than 3100 BC, so this doesn't really make sense.
Archaeological site
Can we call it an "archaeological site" when no archaeologists are digging there? That is the common use of the term, I think.
Ancient stone monument?
Archaeologists, while they are not physically there, are still picking over the bones, so to speak. It is still a major subject for archaeological speculation, and is therefore, probably, still an archaeological site. We don't know for sure that it was a monument except in the loosest possible sense of the word. Ancient: yes. Stone: certainly. But my, it attracts tourists. Therefore, how about (wait for it), ancient stone tourist attraction.:-) Best leave it as an archaeological site for the moment. Some of those druidical types will be around to work their magic on the prose in the due fullness of time in any case. sjc
I'm no expert on Stonehenge but having lived in that area and having been gifted with sight, it's pretty obvious that the "site" extends far beyond the little bit of fenced off area where the stones are. The site seems to extend some considerable distance with burial mounds for miles around. It's a shame the article doesn't dwell more upon that fact that two very busy roads run obtrusively right through Britain's most famous archeological site and the mutilation that English Heritage have performed with the buildings, tunnel and car park. At least the dubious political motives for locking the general public out of site in the first place should be addressed? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/entertainment/3662921.stm It was after all the first step towards turning the place into a megalith zoo (replete with electric fences.) And did I miss something or is there really no mention of Woodhenge which is very close by? - A henge lover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.167.162 (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Guardian Online
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,992215,00.html is the guardian online not the observer. Observer was the pen name of the journalist. I have corrected this but personally strongly protest at including a piece of tat journalism from an online paper which renders an article otherwise very likely to be visited by children inappropriate. This article is nothing like as significant as stonehenge: why do we repeat headline grabbers? BozMo(talk)
Actually it is from The Observer, not Guardian Online: the observer.gaurdian.co.uk domain is for archives from the Observer sunday newspaper, the author of the article is Robin McKie (as it says on the site) --Steinsky 21:10, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Okay but it is still irresponisble rubbish which shouldn't be given credibility by inclusion here. BozMo(talk)
Why is it irresponsible rubbish? A doctor published this in a peer reviewed journal - and then it was picked up by the papers. The Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine may not be Nature or Science, but it is a respectable journal. Just because you don't believe the theory doesn't mean it cant be posted. It's not "unsafe for children" - god... i knew what a vagina was before I could read. And if children don't know, it's not like it's porn. [My Vagina 2/9/2007]
I agree with this point and the one below, perhaps we should move all the unsupported new-age hypotheses to a single paragraph about unsupported new-age hypotheses, and keep the rest of the article for genuine history? --Steinsky 00:38, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Although the article is very good on the modern significance of the monument and its recent history, it really needs a section on the various phases of prehistoric activity on the site. adamsan 07:57, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
Agree that would be much better.--BozMo 09:42, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
I take it you mean "genuine prehistory" Steinsky since there is no "genuine history", at least not before Geoffrey of Monmouth presumably. All very nice in a cosy sciency sort of way, but Stonehenge has always attracted huge amounts of flim-flam so shouldn't the article properly reflect that? One thinks of Chippendale and Aubrey. I like the idea of a bit of mysticism thrown in so long as it's labelled mysticism - Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what people think of something, not just what a few dedicated archaelogists currently think. Especially given that the latter always fall back on "ritual uses" or guesses about "shamanism" or "rites of the dead" since they have no better idea than anyone else what took place there. MarkThomas 23:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Nebra Skydisc
That stuff about the Nebra Skydisc is far too dodgy. As I understand it the provenance of the disc is unknown as it appeared on the international antiquities market with some backstory about it being dug up my metal detectorists on a barrow not a henge site. In fact the whole article is ill-informed from an archaeological point of view, the Ring of Brodgar is indeed an impressive stone circle but not really comparable in size or shape to Stonehenge no trilithons for a start. --adamsan 20:28, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Stanhengue
though it may also have evolved from the Franco-Gaulish word Stanhengue which has the same meaning
Can anyone corroborate this? Nothing comes up on Google for Stanhengue and the linguistics look a bit dodgy to me too. adamsan 17:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Summer solstice 2005
I might suggest moving the 'summer solstice 2005' section to a new page / sub-page. I've just added it in a section for now, as people here might find it interesting - and after the NTL proxy servers have been preventing my image uploads for ~3-hours, I don't have much energy left to move things around just now. I've a few other relevant images, such as posed shots of some druids well after sun-up, but it already has an overly heavy image:text ratio. -- Solipsist 19:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fantastic pictures Solipsist. My suggestion would be instead of moving it all you could make it more general about the modern festivities and put the 2005-specific stuff on a subpage? adamsan 21:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That might work too. With a bit more research I can probably add some more detail, but there is probably a limit to how much can be said - in truth 99% of the people there just turn up because it is an event.
For example no-one I asked (including two groups of druids) knew the significant of the effigy being carried by the King's Drummers. One suggestion was that it was a phoenix like figure representing the rebirth of the sun. Although as the same group of druids were saying, for them the summer solstice is actually about masculine energy and this figure is clearly female.
Also, people are probably celebrating different things. Once I got to the centre of the henge after sun rise, there were several people holding up crystals and semi-precious stones to the sun. I didn't find what the significance of this was, but it looks like more of a new age, although some of these druids are wearing similar stones so it might be druidic too.
It will probably take the input of some editors more familiar with druid rituals to round it out. In any case, I could add a dozen more photographs illustrating other aspects of the evening. The role of English Heritage in opening access and managing the event, especially in trying to stop people climbing on the stones (compare this one to the picture that made the front page of The Guardian this morning), but it wouldn't be appropriate to swamp this page which should concentrate on the history and archeology of the stones.-- Solipsist 09:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I really think it should be moved, and also edited. It rather represents a current event that should be a subset of the existing article, which is more about what Stonehenge is. For instance, in an article about a mountain, you'd describe the mountain. In separate articles you might show what sorts of things happen around mountains today, but it's not the same.
In addition, the voice of the article needs help. It changes from first to third person, and then goes on to do such exciting things as invent new words. I'm inclined to actually delete it and let the author show off his photos on a private page. egthegreat 22 August 2005
New findings
Someone should probably incorporate this new information on the source of the stones, and rewrite the necessary parts of the article. --brian0918™ 22:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's already in there, another victory for wikipedia over the mainstream media! adamsan 22:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Are you sure? The article still says the location from which the stones were quarried is unknown, whereas the news article I linked says that it is no longer a mystery. --brian0918™ 22:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OOps, I must have left a bit in! adamsan 23:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nope, I can't find where it says the bluestone location is unknown, Mercer's possible earlier monument yes but not the quarries. adamsan 23:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) I have looked out the article and added some more stuff though so it's all good. adamsan 23:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Etymology
I have some serious doubts about the accuracy of the name coming from the words Stanhen gist. Can anyone actually quote a source for this? A search on the net reveals a few sites that have more or less the exact same wording as the text here, so who knows which one is the original. Stan+hengen or something of that nature seems to be a much more natural construct. My old english is very poor, I should note, but it just seems far-fetched that a germanic language, and an ancestral tongue to english, no less, should be so different from the rest. The other germanic languages could all make up a similar word with the combination of stone/sten/stein/steen and hang/hangen/hengen/hengi/hange etc so it's quite a coincidence that one of them had a completely different set of word forms (stanhen and gist) that, split differently, seem much closer to the others and mean exactly the same thing.
If you get my drift.
--Bjornkri 11:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi Bjornki, I'm afraid I cant remember where I saw that etymology so it should come out. Christopher Chippendale's Stonehenge Complete quoted in Mike Pitts' Hengeworld gives the derivation as "stone, and a word that would mean in modern English either hinge or gallows" which would indeed suggest something more like stan henge. This source lists Stanenges as a name used in 1130 and these folks support your reasoning too. I will amend the etymology section until we can find a proper citation. adamsan 16:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
The Taboo: Stonehenge was reconstructed
Ignore the dodgy domain, the following URL has a discussion about an allegedly taboo topic - that the Stonehenge we see these days is almost entirely a modern reconstruction (1901 - 1964)
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicstonehenge.htm
If this article is correct then maybe there should be a section in the Wikipedia article about the reconstruction of Stonehenge.
You should find it already discussed in the article under recent history. Terms like 'taboo' are a bit over the top given that the information has always been publicly available. English Heritage's press release following the supposed journalistic smashing of the coverup is hereadamsan 20:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Ahh, thanks :) The WP article only mentionned it in brief so I guess I didn't notice it. This may have been "big news" in England, but I'd never heard of it. Thanks for the link! 08:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)~
There was never a "cover-up". Many relevant academic papers from throughout the 20th century note the restoration work, the story is simply one of the ignorance of some journalists and newspaper editors (and more frightningly, their complete disregard for checking out the facts first) than one of a conspiracy. By the way, only a handful of the stones were repositioned back upright anyway, it was certainly not "rebuilt" as is sometimes claimed, there are many pictures from before the restoration work which prove it looked very similar to as it does now (e.g. http://www.wga.hu/art/c/constabl/stonehen.jpg - 1835 painting by John Constable) . Canderra 22:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Cnelus
A user has, via Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-01-02#Cnelus, brought to my attention that Google's only source for anything named "Cnelus" appears to be this article. Does anyone have their 1615 Inigo Jones handy to check the reference, or anything more to say about this supposed pagan god? --Dystopos 04:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I have a secondary source for Jones' ineterpretation somewhere and will reference it when I get home. I think he may have invented the god on the spot to fit his theory but will check. adamsan 13:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Tell a lie, according to Chippendale's Stonehenge Complete it should be Coelus, Cnelus may have been a typo. I will change the textadamsan 19:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
That makes more sense. By the way, the main article here on WP is under Caelus. --Dystopos 21:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Excavations at Stonehenge claims that Marcus Stone (1840-1921), the British painter, rose from the dead in 1950 and was commissioned by the Society of Antiquaries, with alive Richard Atkinson and alive Stuart Piggott to carry out further excavations at Stonehenge. My comment is, did Marcus Stone (1840-1921) really rise from the dead in 1950? The fact of the matter is it was Doctor John F.S. Stone, the alive British archaeologist who was commissioned by the Society of Antiquaries in 1950, not Marcus Stone (1840-1921), the dead British painter. It was they, Richard Atkinson, Stuart Piggott, and Doctor John F.S. Stone who recovered many cremations and developed the phasing that still dominates much of what is written about Stonehenge. Herewith fellow Wikipedians a beginning list of Encyclopedia Errors caused by CBA's author Excavations at Stonehenge paragraph [1]. "In 1950 the Society of Antiquaries commissioned Richard Atkinson, Stuart Piggott and Marcus Stone to carry out further excavations. They recovered many cremations and developed the phasing that still dominates much of what is written about Stonehenge." [2].
Does anyone know how to fix this slough of 1950 Marcus Stone (1840-1921) Encyclopedia Errors in and on behalf of Doctor John F.S. Stone, British archaeologist? I ask because CBA's author who fixed the mistake and rephrased it [3] after I told CBA about it promised to fix the rest like CBA's [4] but did nothing else, in spite of my many pleas. It has been almost three years since I discovered CBA's error while at Science a GoGo. Several page advertisers such as these [5][6][7] have asked when this will be fixed. Thank you fellow Wikipedians for any ideas you may have. Garry W. Denke, Geologist/Geophysicist Garry Denke 09:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Garry, you are quite right and I have amended the article - eventually the correction will filter through to the sites that carry Wikipedia content. Not sure what role the CBA played in it all but I'm glad to hear you've set them straight too. adamsan 19:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Adamsan, excellent work. Garry Denke 20:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
If anyone's wondering why I removed what appeared to be a legit external link, the IP that submitted it also submitted external links for a number of computer related topics. Nearly all of the links were registered to the same individual, and all of the links contained advert scripts or links. [8],[9]OhnoitsJamieTalk 02:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
If it's the aboutstonehenge.info link you're talking about I'd have to agree - at first glance it appears legit but the information it carries is of pretty low quality - like the page explaining that Stonehenge isn't actually called Stone Hedge "as many people think". The number of ads inclines me to believe it is a primarily an adfarm rather than a reliable source. I think the current selection of links covers the archaeological, tourist, astronomical and pagan aspects and that any new additions should demonstrate some real benefit to someone interested in the site. adamsan 13:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protection from vandals
Seeing as the vast majority of the numerous edits to Stonehenge over the last few months have been vandalism or its reversion, would anyone support putting the article forward for semi-protection? adamsan 21:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Adamsan--Crais459 10:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I was considering putting in an official request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection but struggled to work out how to do it. Perhaps someone else would like to try. MortimerCat 06:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I would be happy to help with requesting protection, or even applying the protection itself. Unfortunately whilst I agree that most of the anon edits here tend to be petty vandalism, it looks like semi-protection would be against Wikipedia:Semi-protection_policy - specifically 'When not to use semi-protection': to prohibit anonymous editing in general.
It is possible that policy ought to change for articles like this, that will always have a large volume of bored school children reading it for their homework. Repeatedly reverting vandalism can be demoralising for good editors. -- Solipsist 07:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Association with New Age and Neo Paganism
I have removed a reference to druids using the Stonehenge for "abstruse rituals practised by white-robed wizards" as I felt this is offensive and subjective --Crais459 10:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The external link to Eternalidol.com
I have been in dialogue with the owner of the above site who would like to see it included in the External links section. Following a response I made to his most recent blog posting about the Stonehenge article, we have been in email contact. In order to ensure transparency and to give other editors an opportunity to comment, I post my most recent message below. I welcome any further views either from the site owner or other users with an opinion on the site's admissibility
Hello Dennis
Thank you for your response. I'm afraid I have not got time to resubmit my message to your blog and have no record of what I wrote anyway. I would be grateful however if would edit the entry so that it no longer incorrectly suggests that the information on laser scanning has been removed.
The rules for admissibility of external linking are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_normally_avoid and I would ask you to look them over in understanding why I am resisting the inclusion of your site. Reasons 1 and 9 are the ones I feel are most applicable, namely that the theories you propound are not verifiable through academic citation and that it could appear to be self-promotion of your site.
Many editors come to Wikipedia understanding it to be a welcoming conduit for disseminating new approaches to a subject. This is partly true but one of the central tenets of the project is that in order to be considered a reliable resource, all valid submissions need to be verifiable (not true, just verifiable), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability for the full details. As editors, we rely academic orthodoxy whether it is right or wrong because our task is to reflect the mainstream, published view. As unpublished authority on Stonehenge you are, in the eyes of the wiki, on the same level of verifiability as the Celtic Mysteries of Alien King Arthur's Pyramid in Atlantis brigade. See also the guidelines on original research which I think are are relevant in this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research . I appreciate that these rules can be frustrating. For example, from my own job I have knowledge of a number of recent archaeological discoveries that deserve to be disseminated as widely as possible. Some of these disprove some of my own contributions to the wiki but I cannot post them until the archaeologists involved get around to publishing something. Until then, I cannot respond to any challenge over verifiability or original research.
Have you considered submitting a paper to a peer-reviewed journal on your theories? Publication would instantly make your ideas acceptable for inclusion in the wiki. Without the (admittedly dubious) badge of academic respectability however, the inclusion of your blog sets a precedent for allowing a whole list of independent researchers to insert their blogs and their own points of view.
I will post this message on Talk:Stonehenge as I would rather that any further dialogue takes place in public.
adamsan provided a detailed, informative and elegant reply. I didn't like it, but I can't argue with it. I don't understand the difference between the content on my journal and some of the others on the external links, but it would be churlish to ask you to remove them as well.
It remains for me to put content of sufficient quality into my journal to merit inclusion on the list of external links and that's that, really. However, having spent as long as I have working in archaeology, I cannot subscribe to this idea of peer-reviewed journals, if for no other reason than life's too short. If you want an example of this, you might have a look at my last entry entitled "Tales of Brave Ulysses" which speaks for itself, really, as far as archaeologists being quick off the mark goes. If I hadn't put this information up, then God only knows when or even if it might have seen the light of day.
Does it have any value? That's for you to all decide, but as Dr David Miles, one-time Senior Archaeologist with English Heritage once observed "Stonehenge is a site of global significance and anything that adds to our knowledge and understanding is of great importance." He also admitted in an interview with the Guardian in 2005 "Stonehenge has not been well-served by archaeology."
Anyway, thank you all for your time and indulgence in this matter and I'm grateful to everyone for keeping up the superb standard of the Stonehenge page as it's been very useful to me. Very best wishes as always - Dennis. --Sigmafour 01:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC) (On behalf of Dennis)
Having just seen the current list of external links, I think I'm going to quit wikipedia. adamsan 08:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Pictures
The article now contains seven pictures of Stonehenge which are essentially the same, although some may be more artistic than others. Perhaps we should consider what images are useful. MortimerCat 16:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree. One of the recent examples added was particularly mundane. There are plenty of better examples on Commons and in particular we should use images which illustrate points in the text. However, this is an article that will always attract people to upload their latest holiday snaps.
The external links section could do with a trim too. -- Solipsist 18:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed the Stonehenge 2004 and Stonehenge 2005 pictures. Has it changed significantly between those two years? MortimerCat 23:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep the 'Cleal' pics plus maybe one tourist pic.
The article needs to be linked to avebury also as they are part of a wider sacred landscape and intergral to all the elements, not as seperate enties.
There is a need to keep association and context intact as here may be read by more than just junior school kids.
New Stonehenge
The Australian sites are far far older than these newish UK ones. They probably originated in Australia though of course national egos wont let that be processed as it should be, for a while yet.
-- yes, and 9/11 was an inside job and man never landed on the moon. Thanks for your input!
Vandalism?
The current article contains substantial material that appears out of place.
It was introduced by an anonymous user over the course of several revisions and appears to be presenting someone's Stonehenge theories as fact.
See this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stonehenge&diff=82191826&oldid=82136593
I'm not that knowledgeable about StoneHenge, but this stuck out like a sore thumb, particularly with it's discussions of "generations" and references to what the builders actually thought and actually did. Could someone else confirm this well-meaning vandalism? Zuytdorp Survivor 06:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Heh, saw the discussions about incessant anon vandalism of this page and so removed the text in question - some had already been removed although the rest had been there for over a week. Zuytdorp Survivor 07:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
From the following paragraph onwards, there is much garbage, somebody should do something:
"The early attempts to figure out the people who had undertaken this colossal project have since been debunked. While there have been precious ..."
Fix that picture
The top picture, Stonehenge 2004, is not showing properly, but I cannot find a reason why. Can someone else have a look, or is it just my viewer playing up? MortimerCat 10:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks like it is the 300px param causing the problem. That's normally OK, so it may just be a temporary image server thing, or something to do with the image cache. Someone should put it back to 300px in a weeks time or so, assuming that the gremlins disappear. -- Solipsist 12:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Female Worship
I have read somewhere suggesting the Stonehenge was made for female fertility rituals. Before the introduction of Christianity, the people there are known to have practiced paganism, which is usually centered around fertility. Plus, the spiritual leaders are known to be women. Additionally, the main section of Stonehenge, a circle, symbolizes the womb or uterus, while the section leading up to it symbolizes the birth canal or vagina.--141.214.17.5 07:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
No one truly knows what the monument is/was for. Therefore, I have added a NPOV tag to the part claiming the fertility issue. To claim we know what it means is ignorant. Jmlk17 08:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
"Plus, the spiritual leaders are known to be women." - Wow, some academic credentials you have there, please keep the zany stuff to your own website that no-one will visit as it's full of tosh.
I noticed some information has appeared. Also, noticed passage:
The village was carbon dated to about 2600 B.C., about the same time Stonehenge was built. The Great Pyramid in Egypt was built at about the same time, said Parker Pearson of Sheffield University.
I have heard theories connecting them before, and wondered why it wasn't mentioned in the article, at least under "Alternative Theroies" or somesuch.
An issue of Nature last year gave a pretty good rundown of a gynecologist with his own theory concerning this, the trilithons, if you note, are not a circle, rather fairly oblong and the parts actually correspond to the parts of the vulva directly. The work is not as quackpottery and it is published: Stonehenge: a view from medicine http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=539405. Unlike the previous suggestion which is vague and fairly off, I think this one has enough merit to be added to the article. The suggestions are prudent enough to warrant a note anyhow, for goodness sakes it has UFOs referenced, the bar is low and the theories aren't that bad. Tat 08:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Tell me that doesn't look like a vulva (vagina if you don't know the diff)? -->>
Big loooong article
This article is way over the 32 kb recommended length given in WP:SIZE. Anyone mind if I shorten it? Some sections (eg "in recent times") are nearly as long as their own articles! Totnesmartin 15:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The list of external links is ripe for culling. It's waaaay to long, and many of the links are described so loosely that it's hard to work out if they're worth visiting at all. I'd have thought that any more than 10 external links is too much. The only reason for having more is if they represent sources for the article - in which case, they should be added properly as references. I may have a go myself if I've the time. Cheers, --Plumbago 11:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, just keep the ones that are used as sources. External Links always attracts extraneous sites that don't help much. Totnesmartin 13:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I took a crack at trimming the external links section -- lots of stuff in there that does not conform to the guidelines on useful external links. I took out dead links, a youtube.com page, all personal pages, those that repeat the same content, those that add little to the discussion (e.g. sites with a small summary section on stonehenge), and tangentially related sites. If anyone feels strongly about something I removed feel free to advocate and/or put it back with an explanation.
Limey415 17:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I tried to reorganize it a little bit by shoving some categories containing simply links directing to a main article into the 'see also' category. I also removed some links to articles that were already in the 'see also' category but were ones that I didn't think were worth keeping in. b_cubed 18:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Manuscript image
This image was moved out of the main article as result of the recent creation of Theories about Stonehenge. This image illustrates one of the early mythological theories about Stonehenge, and is apropriate for that article. It, however, is also the earliest know image of Stonehenge and, in my opinion, would be of some interest to the main article as well. Unless there are strong objections I will be inserting the image into the article in a few days. Dsmdgold 15:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually that's a fair point. I did the chopping-up rather quickly so I don't mind any corrections (apart from somebody putting it all back!). Actually I'll pop over and do it now... Totnesmartin 18:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It's now in under "Arthurian legend". Totnesmartin 18:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems like a good place, and thank you. I didn't want to come across too heavy-handed, as I have not done any work with this article, other than finding this image. Dsmdgold 02:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
No that's fine, as I said I only did a rough job so there were bound to be mistakes. Totnesmartin 12:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
1877 photograph
I have a photograph of Stonehenge taken in July 1877 by a relative. Would people be agreeable to me adding it here? Teapotgeorge 18:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, lets have a look. GoldenMeadows 18:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I've just added the 1877 photograph let me know if it's in the correct place? Teapotgeorge 15:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes! and it illustrates the text quite nicely - thank you. GoldenMeadows 18:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Request
Hello, I have no training or education in archelogy (I can't even spell it), but could somebody "fix" the first paragraph? It doesn't read well. Remember this site is viewed by the general public much more than archaeologists.
It needs something like this:
Stonehenge is an ancient earthwork composed of large standing stones in a circular setting. One of the most famous prehistoric sites, it is located in the English county of Wilshire, 13km from etc. etc. Archelogoists agree/claim/believe it was constructed around 3200 BC(possibly add a footnote here, but the date is probably a well known and generally agreed upon fact). (The part about the ditch fits into the development of stonehenge, it's not important to the general description, it's more of a technical note.) It is a UNESCO heritage site, etc.
This is an old article, so I'm sure all of this has been discussed. The discussion page itself is quite long. If this has already been covered, please disregard. Still it would be nice to fix this paragraph, make it more accesible to the general public and trim some unneeded technicalities that can be covered later. Thanks.
~~
further
I made a couple of quick changes in the first paragraph. If anyone wants to further edit that, please make improvements.
~~
Recent additions
The sentence Late Cretaceous (Santonian Age) Seaford Chalk is the geologic formation outcrop at Stonehenge. has been added to the opening paragraph of the article. I'm sure that should be better worded for a start - 'The geologic formation outcrop at Stonehenge is Late Cretaceous (Santonian Age) Seaford Chalk' for example. Also does anyone know what it means? I'm assuming it doesn't refer to the stones themselves since they are either the bluestones or the sarsens. Does it mean the land on which the monument is situated? This should be made clear.
Finally, it should be placed elsewhere in the article, it doesn't seem to fit in the opening paragraph, which is already long enough. Ideally, this should be a simple concise opening description of the salient facts. Discussing the geology at this stage will probably put off the casual reader.
What do people think? Benea 13:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Benea's "The geologic formation outcrop at Stonehenge is Late Cretaceous (Santonian Age) Seaford Chalk" reads better for the introduction of Stonehenge's first building material stone, namely Limestone, the Chalk. With the links added (as shown therein and above) anyone would know what rocks built the monument's first features, its 6' high stone Bank, and of course the Avenue.
Agreed, the opening paragraph is a bit long, however, after scrolling through the entire article, I could not find a more appropriate area to introduce its beginning stone, the first stone of the henge. If anyone sees a better place to insert Benea's sentence for Stonehenge's foundation stone; Go for it!
Sunset on Wednesday 20th June 2007 is 2126 hrs (9.26pm)
Sunrise will occur at 0458 hrs (4.58am) on Thursday 21st June 2007
Happy Summer Solstice everybody!
Garry Denke 14:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've moved the sentence (slightly reworded) to the Stonehenge 1 (ca. 3100 BC) section. Hope everybody approves. Benea 15:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks good Benea, but with a period (.) after "Chalk", perhaps (7 and 8) "measuring" should be 'measures'.
Have a great Solstice! Garry Denke 17:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me, and the same to you. Benea 17:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
There are multiple Stonehenges aren't there?
There are Stonehenge's in Ireland along with England aren't there? -Sox207 21:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
There are numerous stone circles and henges in Ireland, England and other countries, but Stonehenge as a proper noun refers only to this monument, so strictly speaking no. Benea 21:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I sorta figured after reading the article, thanks for clearing that up. -Sox207 21:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Pretons
I heard on the the History Channel once that they are thinking that Pretons built it. 24.4.131.142 03:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This short documentary shows a stateside, retired construction worker (Wally Wallington) who's been getting some press for building a slightly larger "Stonehenge" in his back yard. He shows how a single person can move, raise, and stand up 25-ton rock. Could be an eligible entry?
Looks interesting. I've started a small section on construction. I suggest that it deserves no more, and in particular no alien theories. Wally (I wonder if he's heard of the Wallies who occupied Stonehenge for a while?) is only the latest of several people to demonstrate plausible techniques. There was a film made in the 1950s I think, and that recent attempt to get stones transported by people power from Pembroke, which ended in fiasco. Any good links to others? Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Ownership
I may be wrong about this, but I felt it might be worth talking about.
Every reference I've ever seen to Stonehenge indicates that it is owned by the nation - or occasionally the government. Cecil Chubb donated it to the nation in 1918, and it is English Heritages responsibility to manage it for the nation under the National Heritage act. My belief was that the Crown was responsible for the Commonwealth, and thus the property of the crown was the property of more than just Britain. I only question it because amongst all the texts I've read about Stonehenge I've never seen it referenced as under the 'ownership of the crown', and Chub donated it to Britain alone. Any thoughts? Psychostevouk (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
See The Crown, specifically In the United Kingdom, as an example, The Crown in Right of the United Kingdom is an entity that represents all rulership in the UK, but is separate from the person currently wearing it. The crown is responsible for the commonwealth, but only as part of its duties. So the Crown holds the Commonwealth, alongside holding, for example, Stonehenge. Like 'the nation', it is a rather abstract legal term, but a slightly more precise, and therefore I think preferable, term to use in this case. Benea (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but doesn't 'the nation' seem slightly clearer? The crown page is hardly a clear definition of what the term means in this instance, and as you point out, is only relevant in one element - that of the UK. I wouldn't want people to be confused by the opening paragraph into thinking that Stonehenge was a property of the Commonwealth (or even the Queen). Or could we not even link to the UK section of the Crown? Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The term may be abstract, but it is also quite precise. In this case, Stonehenge might be mistaken for being owned by a particular government, i.e. whichever political party is in power. Being 'owned by the nation' is actually even less clearer, and does not give any indication of the actual state of ownership or administration. To clarify what I was saying earlier, the Crown does not own the commonwealth which owns Stonehenge, the Crown owns (and I am using the term very loosely here as that's quite a constitutional can of worms) the commonwealth AND Stonehenge. The concept crops up quite a lot in everyday use, for example Crown copyright refers more to works owned by the government and its agencies and departments, more than it does those of an individual monarch. I'll admit it's fairly complicated and you could link to the specific heading in The Crown article if you wanted, but using the term is the most accurate way of describing the situation. I think we'll have to trust people to be intelligent enough to realise that, or follow the link to the article which explains what it means. Though I've had dealings with someone on this page who seemed to think that Howard Hughes had bought Stonehenge and given it to him as a gift. And that the Ark of the Covenant was buried under the heelstone, and digging it up would cause the second coming of Jesus, and a global polarity flip that would reverse global warming. Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain... Benea (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
"The Heel Stone once known as the Friar's Heel, a corruption of the Welsh "Freya sul" or "Freya's Seal"
Freya in Welsh?
Actually, just researched it some more - this may not be the Norse Freya after all. I'll remove the link and query the corruption. tnx. sjc Later: Ffreya is also a Celtic/druidic goddess so this looks more convincing now, particularly when set against the ever-reliable Geoffrey of Monmouth's confabulations.... sjc
Well, shame on you, sjc! G of M may not be the most reliable of sources, but he never wrote either of the two stories attributed to him in this article. Gerald Hawkins in his book, Stonehenge Decoded, discusses Geoffrey's passages that touch on Stonehenge, and expresses a bit of surpise that this admittedly less-than-reliable source does foreshadow some information that only careful research some 700 years later would corroborate.
The problem with G of M's work is that at face value he reads like a pathological liar about Wales, Cornwall and Britain in general; but when one starts comparing what he wrote with the traces of legends and folklore that predated him, one is surprised how little he fabricated. J.S.P. Tatlock, in his book Legendary History of Britain, is clearly skeptical about what G of M writes, yet finds constant proof that Geoffrey has adapted pre-existing traditions in his writings. Was he just lucky in what he invented? Or did he actually incorporate Breton and Welsh traditions of his age in his writings? Frankly, I'll confess to thinking it is the latter, but only because having read his Historia Regum Britanniae with an unprejudiced eye, it is clear where G of M fabricates, & where he is appears to repeating local traditions.
I won't belabor the fact that Geoffrey has received more skepticisim than he deserves: think of him as the Jean Auel of his age, who was not above rewriting the fruits of his research in order to either push forward his own agenda or to tell an entertaining story. -- llywrch 02:12 Dec 1, 2002 (UTC)
The "Hele Stone" and "Heel Stone" names for Stone No. 96 at Stonehenge were abandoned over twenty (20) years ago by geologists, geophysicists, and archaeologists who worked the site. English Heritage literature clearly shows that "Heelstone" has been and is the accepted style and spelling among scientists. Herewith four (4) authoritative published works about Heelstone - we can Talk:Debate Sjc and Llywrch to great depth the slough of names for this infamous 'sardine stone' (my favorite), but the correct Encyclopedia name for Stone No. 96 is styled and spelled "Heelstone" by Prehistoric Society, English Heritage and British Academy authors, and Stonehenge excavators.
1. On the Road to Stonehenge: Report on Investigations beside the A344 in 1968, 1979 and 1980, edited by T.C. Champion, assisted by John G. Evans, by Michael W. Pitts, with contributions from Hilary Howard, Alister Bartlett and Andrew David, PROCEEDINGS OF THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY, Volume 48, 1982, ISSN 0079-497X, "Heelstone" (Stone No. 96), "Heelstone" Ditch, Plate 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, pp. 75, 76, 78, 79, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 98, 101, 102, 106, 107, 108, 110, 112, 121, 122, 123, 125, 127, 128.
2. Stonehenge in its landscape, Twentieth-century excavations, Rosamund M J Cleal, K E Walker, and R Montague, with major contributions by Michael J Allen, Alex Bayliss, C Bronk Ramsey, Linda Coleman, Julie Gardiner, P A Harding, Rupert Housley, Andrew J Lawson, Gerry McCormac, Jacqueline I McKinley, Andrew Payne, Robert G Scaife, Dale Serjeantson, and Geoff Wainwright, ENGLISH HERITAGE, 1995, ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT 10, ISBN1850746052, Index 603, 608, Plate 7.2, "Heelstone" (Stone 96), pp. 25, 26, 166, 269, 270, 271, 272, "Heelstone" Ditch, pp. 11, 12, 25, 26, 269, 270, 271, 274-6, 275, 321, 324.
3. Proceedings of the British Academy . 92, Science and Stonehenge, Edited by, Barry Cunliffe & Colin Renfrew, Published for The British Academy, by OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1997, ISBN0197261744, Index 351, 355, "Heelstone" (Stone 96), pp. 15, 16, 28, 79, 155, "Heelstone" ditch, pp 29, 30, 82.
4. Hengeworld, Mike Pitts, C, CENTURY . LONDON, 2000, ISBN0712679545, Index 402, 403, Stonehenge, "Heelstone", pp. 8, 96, 135, 139, 145-50, 154, 229, 266, 275, 7, 138, 146, 230.
GENERAL ENQUIRIES: English Heritage, Customer Services Department, PO Box 569, Swindon, SN2 2YP, England, Email: Customer Services, Telephone: +44 (0) 870 333 1181, Fax: +44 (0) 1793 414926, Email National Monument Record (NMR) enquiries, Telephone: +44 (0) 1793 414600, Fax: +44 (0) 1793 414606 [10]
Wow you kids (Dragons flight, Benea, et al) have been having a lot of fun. You are quite right 76.182.220.150, the Altar Stone (no. 80) at the center of Stonehenge is not Silurian, it is a Devonian Period sedimentary Old Red Sandstone from the Cosheston micaceous Senni Bed Formation of South Wales according to English Heritage[11] and the British Geological Survey[12]. The wiki Stonehenge article currently stands in error, sadly AdamsanAdamsan is not around to correct Benea's mistakes anymore. O well... Garry Denke 22:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Please provide a reference then. Benea 22:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Three references above. Please provide your references. Regretfully AdamsanAdamsan is not here to stop to your vandalizing behavior. Please stop vandalizing the Stonehenge article AdamsanAdamsan developed. The Heelstone (no. 96) and the Altar Stone (no. 80) are not "Silurian". Please, you and/or your vandalizing buddy, Dragons flight, provide your two (2) recent references otherwise, or correct your mistakes. Thank you! 76.182.220.150 05:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't really care if it was or wasn't Silurian. However you and your father (User: Garry Denke) have been identified as hoaxers, and been caught attempting to add erroneous material to this and a number of articles to push your own theories in violation of WP:NOR. If you (or anyone one else can prove it wasn't Silurian, then the information can go in the article with my blessings. If not then it has no place in this encyclopedia. You need references to add material, not to remove it. Unreferenced material may be challenged and removed at anytime. --Benea 11:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
This isn't really an issue of adding/removing material, it is a disagreement over a matter of fact. Given that User:Garry Denke has a history of making claims about Stonehenge that are considerably outside the mainstream academic consensus, I am not inclined to take his word over this. I've removed two controversial adjectives to leave something that everyone can agree on, pending the provision of sources. --Cherry blossom tree 17:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Neither of the links you give support your assertions. If you can provide sources that do then you are welcome to do so. --Cherry blossom tree 14:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
You have an unusual method of using talk pages. Please add your comment after the person you are replying to rather than inserting it into someone else's comment, while also removing another part of that comment. I'll repeat myself, however. You are possibly right, but you need references. Claiming that various organisations support your position does you no good unless you can point out where they support you. Otherwise anyone could simply claim that God agrees with them and he outranks the British Geological Survey. --Cherry blossom tree 08:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The source you quote is uncertain on the origin of the Altar Stone: "...[the] degree of deformation may indicate that they are older than the Devonian. As their origin remains unknown it is still not possible to provenance them."--Cherry blossom tree 08:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
And rightly so, she's not that smart. Garry Denke 15:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The Heelstone section here refers the translation as “Sunday” whereas the main Heelstone article refers “Friday”. Will the real translation please stand up? 158.180.64.10 (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This online dictionary [13] says "Sunday" - I've changed the Heelstone article -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Pictures of Stonehenge
There are several pictures now available of Stonhenge from different directions. Does somebody know from wich directen they where taken and could he/she please add it to the picture discription? A gallary would imho be nice too. --Arcy2 16:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.177.204.254 (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Cecil Chubb
I've noticed two conflicting points in the following articles.
In the wiki page Cecil_Chubb the article explains that he "was the last owner of Stonehenge which he gave to the nation in 1918."
In the wiki page stonehenge the article explains that his wife gave the site away to the nation. "In 1915 Cecil Chubb bought Stonehenge, through Knight Frank & Rutley estate agents, for £6,000 as a present for his wife. She gave it to the nation three years later."
I know it's only a minor variation but does anyone know which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.47.127 (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The Cecil Chubb page is correct. Sir Cecil actually purchased Stonehenge for £6,600 on a whim as he believed a local man should own the site. His wife was not pleased with his purchase. He then gave the site to English Heritage and was knighted in 1919 to mark his generosity. I've changed the stonehenge page. Louisejharden (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that too. It does seem a little bit excessive - especially as the stone could have been kept when the person was removed from the image. Psychostevouk (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure that link works? Benea (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've got it now. There could be a couple of reasons, one is that it is an old picture, taken when there was some surfacing down, which was later removed and the path repositioned. Another is that it has been laid down for a special event or occasion. Or it could be that it is a computer generated image or plan for an idea that was not implemented. As you can see in other pictures of the site, the monument is not surfaced as shown in that photograph. Benea (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Access
The article states "in 1987 they prohibited access within the circle completely. Visitors are no longer permitted to touch the stones, but merely walk around the monument from a short distance." But that's not entirely true, there are about a dozen days each year when visitors can touch the stones under controlled circumstances, I did so in 2005 myself.CoW mAnX (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Four days each year to be exact and only for a short period. The summer and winter solstices and the spring and autumn equinoxes. And only for the period around the rising of the sun. But the article could do with mentioning that as well I suppose. Benea (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
English Heritage provides a better reference. It's quite easy to get into the circle before and after closing. Psychostevouk (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The article still ignores the dubious political motives for banning access to the site and the general harassment of New Age Travellers at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.8.20 (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
That's because that's POV and of dubious relevance here. Benea (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Plagarism?
isn't all of "Etymology" and "History" copied word for word from skepticworld.com?
The other way around it seems. A version more or less like the version at skepticworld.com has existed on wikipedia since 2004, whilst by skepticworld.com's copyright tag (which is rather invalid now, since it's not theirs to copyright), theirs has been there since 2006. Benea (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
New Dig
It's nice to see some info on the new dig, but it seems a little out of place in an article that has practically no information about any other archaeological research at the site, and it looks a little uncomfortable as a kind of 'tag on' at the bottom of the page. This dig is no more important than any of the digs that have gone before. Wouldn't it be better to have an 'archaeological research' section including information on the digs throughout the twentieth century within the 'recent history' section? I'll gladly put this together if everyone agrees. Psychostevouk (talk) 10:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I noticed that when I put the new information in but haven't had time to get out my Hengeworld book and work on it! If you'll do it, great.Doug Weller (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll get to work, and hopefully have something in a few days. Just thinking that it might be hard to separate the antiquarians from recent archaeology, so it might have to go outside of 'recent history', but we can worry about that later. BTW, I'll probably make loads of gaffes so prepare to tidy it up! Psychostevouk (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added some detail, combining it with the restoration section, as a lot of excavation was done alongside each phase of the rebuilding. You'll notice a lot of dodgy links and lack of references but I'll get to work cleaning it up over the next few days - but feel free to add refs if you like! Psychostevouk (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually most of the refs I've used are in the bibliography, and I've added a new one. I'm not very good on judging where citations would be needed, so if anyone wanted to highlight them I can source them later on. Hope everyone likes the text - theres so much info about it though that it could easily grow. Psychostevouk (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It's an important aspect and the previous cover in the article wasn't very generous. Big improvement! --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Moonraker. Out of curiosity, I'd always assumed years should be linked (seen it in so many other articles). Should we avoid it? Psychostevouk (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Seemingly we should, unless there's special significance. Policy here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks Moonraker, I'll bear that in mind Psychostevouk (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
A much improved article, thanks. And thanks to Old Moonraker too for pointing out the policy on linking years, as I've never seen that before but have been unwilling to do myself when editing.Doug Weller (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
External Links
Sorry JzG, but I've undone your edit to the article. This isn't some attempt to annoy you, but I think the external links requires a little more consideration than just deleting a large amount at a time. As the WP:SPAMHOLE article says "The best remedy is to evaluate each link one at a time" and I think that is necessary here. Several deleted links - especially laserscans of the monument by Wessex Archaeology, and Stukeley's text on the stones are important to the article, whilst some that you left including Stonehenge and others are probably more worthy of deletion. Could we discuss this before we make significant edits to peoples ability to learn more about the article? Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I do agree with JzG that some of the external links are a bit off, so how about this as a more compact list? I've removed the ones that seemed to be basically either echoing the Wikipedia article, or echoing each other (there were 2 links to Stonehenge - Today and Yesterday!), and those that seemed like commercial sites. I've moved a few to more relevant articles. I don't think there's any fringe views or unworthy links here that aren't academically relevant, and I think it provides a better range of additional information or detail on some of the less well covered bits of the article. Equally though some people may like some of the removed ones, or find this list too long or too short, or some of the links inappropriate. What do you all think? Psychostevouk (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Pretty good, except I don't think the article on the UFO site about Dark Forces is really acceptable, and the same goes for the photo gallery on the Sacred Destinations site. Oh, and Brian John's stuff on Bluestones, personal website and all that, interesting speculation but I don't think appropriate. I wish Mike Pitts still had his Hengeworld site. Cut those 3 out and it will be fine unless a new site pops up.Doug Weller (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I fully understand your points. I admit I didn't realise that the Bluestone site was a personal site, but a quick Google reveals what may be a more appropriate link. I think it's worth keeping something about Glaciation because it is a bit of a hot topic. I originally kept the UFO site because it was the best I could get from a google search, and the credits at the bottom are legit enough. However, looking up through the talk pages reveals an alternative link, but with no pictures which is a shame. Personally I think I'd prefer the UFO site, but thats just my opinion. The gallery site is just cosmetic really, but maybe wikicommons has enough for it. Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as this article is about a non-christian topic and in many ways significant to non christians wouldnt it be better to use BC BCe
What's the difference? The common era is synonymous with the era of Christ. Both date from the same event. What's the point of calling it BCE except to deny that the 'common era' began with the birth of Christ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.212.68 (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, "CE" and "BCE" would be far better. It is virtually entirely accepted by historians was not born on the year 0, and because in general, Stonehenge is more significant among the historic and Neo-Pagan communities, I think that the non-Christian system would be more appropriate. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC))
What's this about it being a non-Christian may of dating and so more appropriate to a monument that is 'more significant among the historic and Neo-Pagan communities' - err than who? English heritage and the National Trust, as well a lot of the scholarly works quoted use BC. The MoS says not to change from one style to the other without a good reason. Assuming that you know who will be more interested in this article isn't really enough justification. Benea (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Although I prefer bce and find that archaeologists commonly use it as do a lot of religious writers (the IP address above needs to read Common Era), Benea is correct. I get annoyed by people who try to change to BC though when there is no reason except their religious preferences, I don't think we can change this if it was originally AD/BC.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Sirs,
There is a problem with the B.C. dating of pre-historic times. It creates the impression that events are less distant in terms of time passed.One has to add two thousand years each time, and this senseless addition disrupts apt thinking. Stonehenge is five thousand years old. Humans in that neolitic time were starting basic agriculture in Europe. Hunting was still extremely important, particularly in England. There was plenty of wild cattle, dangerous bulls, bears, and perhaps a number of lions. There was war among bands of hunters. One should consider the possibility of Stonehenge being a fort or castle, and an embankment to round up cattle and wild game, to slaughter it easily. The article ignores these facts and should be completed with this reazonable theory. The Sarsen Circle must also be considered a tactical construction, the first castle of History, as defensive core of the embankment. Religious and astronomical purposes of Stonehenge are unsatisfactory as the only explanation of the monument. Please consider this change to the text of the article in Wikipedia. Santiago sevilla (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:VERIFY - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and only reports what verifiable reliable sources have said. We don't add things to articles because we think they are interesting, possible, etc, but only because they are significant views reported elsewhere. No speculation, no original research, read WP:OR as well, thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Excellent and informative stuff for the article Garry. Please can you provide some references to this exciting and astonishing information so that we can add them instantly to this encyclopaedia of fact and ensure that generations after us can continue to learn the exciting and varied history of this surprising monument.
You do have some references don't you? Psychostevouk (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
So 586 BC? Or 586 BCE? John 17:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
In all seriousness, my personal preference would be to use BC. In the great majority of the texts or books I've read about Stonehenge, that is the system that is used. Although it is obviously based on a religious principle, BC/AD goes beyond religion nowadays so I think it would be a mistake to argue for its removal based on this being a non-Christian topic. Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The calendar in my house says 2008, that's the year I associate myself being in, so that's a year I can more easily understand in an article. It's not about being Christian because I am anything but that, it's about the most easily understood and most commonly used terms, which is the system it's currently being used in. To change the dates to be accepted more by a minority who is much more likely to know the date translations anyway, while alienating the massive majority of people who use the universally accepted dates, would be insane. 76.95.58.104 (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Please don't suggest that editors have insane ideas. Wikpedia is explicitly agnostic as to dating systems, see WP:ERAA. Your calendar probably doesn't say AD or CE, and in any case it would still say 2008, why do you think it wouldn't? Are you confused and thinking of BP? I would argue that archaeologists are moving towards using BCE and CE, and that should be used, but without consensus we should stick with whatever dating system was first used in this article. Doug Weller (talk) 07:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Function and Construction
I rolled the two sections together, as they collectively consisted of three sentences. I appreciate the need to keep the whole page from turning into some rehash of UFOs and ley lines, but I think we have to acknowledge that the main cultural fascination with Stonehenge is its 'mystery.' Ethan Mitchell (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The Aubrey Holes were ment to represent the weeks in a year: 56 weeks of 6.5 days as in Babylon 3000 B.C.These numbers should be mentioned in the main article.
We don't know that that is exactly what they were for. It's only a theory. If you can find a reference for it, then it might suit either the Aubrey holes or the Theories about Stonehenge articles. I think it may be a little too fringe to mention here as this article largely deals with known facts. Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I have a theory, we can't know for sure how the stonehenge was built, but seeing as i live in the northern mariana island (Tinian) where latte stones are our version of the stonehenge, i believe that it is possible that humans made them. It sounds ridiculous, but we don't know for sure. I believe superhumans did exist, long before diseases/plagues started to evolve. Think about it! Ndpascua (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Your theory is that it's possible that humans made Stonehenge? I don't think you'll find much disagreement on that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.114.192 (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Whilst I do like the main image for this article (its a good angle and has a lovely brooding sky), it is a shame that in order to remove the people from the shot the far right stone has been removed, but a car and shed between the rightmost standing stone and trilithon have remained. With a quick bit of photoshopping I can remove the car, shed, people, road-sign, speck and small bird in the foreground, but keep the far right stone. I assume that this is ok in Wikipedia (if not please say). What does everyone think about doing this to keep the stones complete but lose the modern stuff? Psychostevouk (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me.Doug Weller (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Fortunately, someone has put the rock back in the original image! Psychostevouk (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Heelstone Question
The rounded appearance of the Heelstone suggests that it is a glacial erratic. Does it predate Stonehenge itself? If so, it might have been something of a mystery to our ancestors. Is it possible that the Heelstone might have served as a catalyst for a construction so grandiose as Stonehenge? Virgil H. Soule (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe that some archaeologists have suggested that it may be a natural deposit, whilst the other sarsens were imported to the area, hence the fact that it is unshaped. Atkinson believed that some bluestone that he found below it suggested that it was erected at the same time as the bluestone circle, although that admittedly doesn't tell us where it may have been originally. Psychostevouk (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Pitts says the sarsens (actually the name of the type of stone is sarsen) are all local stones. The Heelstone is also sandstone, so I assume it is just unshaped sarsen. It is phase 3a, (phase 3 came before that) and certainly not the inspiration for Stonehenge (which started as a wooden structure). --Doug Weller (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
There are theories that the heelstone, along with the nearby Cuckoo stone and Bulford stones (all sarsens - the s is plural) are natural deposits, whereas the sarsens at Stonehenge are most likely from the Marlborough Downs twenty miles away (hence imported to the area). This is mainly borne from the fact that they are unshaped stones, and there is no definitive date for the heeltsones erection. It is possible that the heelstone was a natural deposit in the area, and may have been the basis for building another monument. For example - IF the Cuckoo stone were a natural deposit where it is, then it would seem that Woodhenge and the Cursus were both aligned on it.
That doesn't mean the heelstone always stood where it is (the bluestone under it refutes that) but just because early Stonehenge had timber posts, doesn't mean that stone was not allowed in it. Woodhenge had at least 2 stone settings for instance. If the heelstone was a deposit nearby it may have been used as a focus for activities, like the other stones in the area were (both the Bulford and Cuckoo stones had burials around them), and erected at Stonehenge later. Who knows – it might even have originally been located in the centre of the circle – as a deposit - hence construction around it. We don’t know and probably never will.
It doesn't mean that Stonehenge was built because the heelstone was there, but it doesn't mean that it wasn't already ritually important in the landscape and came to be used for the construction of the circle. The fact it is unshaped suggests something different from the other sarsens in the circle – although equally this may be because the builders were tired of shaping the stones once they got them to Stonehenge. Virgil, you might also be interested to know that it originally probably had a partner stone next to it, and so wasn’t quite as unique as it now appears. Haven’t got any references for you for this though, but stuff’s out there on it. It’s not really relevant to the article though.Psychostevouk (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Full Circle
Another question: Depictions and models of Stonehenge usually show it as a complete circle. What evidence indicates that it was, in fact, completed in antiquity? Have most or all of the capstones, for example, been accounted for at the site or in the community roundabout? This would have a bearing on restoration efforts at Stonehenge. I am in favor of restoration, by the way, as long as it doesn't alter or erase the original builders' work. I would love to see the Egyptians reface the pyramids so that we could see at least one of them in its original glory. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 04:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
There isn't really any evidence. All records of it show it as an incomplete circle, and we have no way of knowing how it may have looked in pre-history. Some archaeologists do seriously suggest that it was never finished. Apparently there is too little in the surrounding communities to account for a complete circle. For my own part, the fact that there is little evidence that the other monuments in the area do not appear to have been deliberately destroyed during the Iron and Roman periods and beyond, (whilst Stonehenge seems largely ruined suggests) something Psychostevouk (talk) 07:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
What archaeologists suggest 'it' (what's 'it'?) wasn't completely finished. Pitts certainly calls 3ii a once perfect circle of 30 stones. And I'm afraid I on't understand your last sentence, could you please rephrase it? Thanks. --Doug Weller (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The surrounding circle of sarsens was never completely capped with lintels for one thing. At least one of the surviving uprights could never have supported a lintel since the time it was put in place, so the images of an outer circle capped with a continuous ring of lintels are wishful thinking. There was at least one gap and quite possibly more. Benea (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why Pitts says differently. He says 30 lintels.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The culprit is stone 11, which Atkinson found was too narrow to have supported lintels. The two sarsens on either side were fitted with the customary knobs to fit the socketed lintels, so the intention was certainly there. The theories were that it had broken and was once larger, but Atkinson found this not to be the case. Pitts seems to have fudged the issue, implying a wooden rather than a stone lintel, but it is still a contentious issue. Benea (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Just a side issue, one problem with researching the geology of Stonehenge, the Heel stone, etc on the web is the ubiquitous and just plain made Garry Denke, posting at times as Yahweh & other names or even claiming to be me, on every forum there is about its geology and the fact he owns it - and the Ark of the Covenenant under the heelstone. --Doug Weller (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
He is a bit keen – with the recent dig at Stonehenge I’ve seen his name on every cooments section of online newspaper articles – here’s a good example.
Like everyone else Pitts has theories, but they are theories. We will probably never know exactly what Stonehenge finally looked like, or was for. If it (it being a pronoun) was ever a complete circle, we do not know – because we have no record of it like that. It was probably finished – but what does finished mean? The y and z holes probably never held anything – in one sense that implies they weren’t finished. They have infill from the bronze age all the way through to the 14th Century, so they probably filled in over time – not deliberately backfilled during the monuments construction. They may have been waiting for another ring of stones than never arrived. Similarly whilst we can fairly certainly guess that the standing stones were erected in the socket holes making up a complete circle, we don’t know that all of them were capped with lintels.
It seems likely that Stonehenge was systematically broken down for various reasons over a long period of time, but for a full half of a complete structure to be missing is quite impressive. The damage is also random (a mix of every type of stone position survives), suggesting that there was never an organised attempt to remove it. The surrounding monuments also show little evidence of deliberate destruction. The stone would have been useful in an area of chalk and little other building material, but it is not an easy stone to work, and of limited value for building. Added to that there isn’t much evidence for the stones in the local area. So it is fair to speculate that Stonehenge was never finished to the same degree as reconstructions show. It is just speculation. I remember reading it somewhere, but I can’t think where now, and I can’t remember who the supporters were – but I do remember the point Benea makes being in it. I have spoken to some archaeologists though, and they accept that it is a possibility – but not necessarily one that they promote. Virgil asked a question, I gave him my answer. It’s not a case of original research or anything, and I wouldn’t start making noises about including it in the article without referencing it. It’s just an answer to a question. Psychostevouk (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Garry's been active on here as well - a case was eventually filed here at WP:AN/I and he has been quiet for a while now. It's usually a good idea to maintain a watch though on some of his more actively interested pages, but I suspect he's realised that wikipedia has stricter guidelines than an online message board. As to everything else that's been discussed, the answer is probably no, Stonehenge was never classically finished as some of the more fanciful reconstructions like to depict, but it is a matter of on going debate. It shouldn't detract from the monument that this might be the case though. I agree that as it stands this should remain the topic of discussion here rather than appearing on the article page itself. As to Virgil's original question though, I'm fairly sure that there is no question of really trying to restore Stonehenge any more than it is. Future work will probably be to ensure the preservation of the monument rather than trying to recreate a historical ideal that may never have existed. Benea (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
He's been posting almost obssessively on Usenet to sci.archaeology (as Yahweh), many threads in which he is the only participant. This started (again) just a few weeks ago. I'll make sure I'm watching any appropriate articles just in case. I wouldn't want anyone to try to restore Stonehenge, but there is a guy in Australia building a replica! And as you say, the discussion is best left here.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
In your Garry Denke advertisements you should add His "universal magnetic reversal" that I will be conducting on Heelstone Ark excavation day at Heelstone Ark exhumation hour. That way your Garry Denke advertisements will Full Circle this universal 783,000-year-old magnetic (geologic) age. Love and blessings, YHWH Allah Garry Denke 12:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garry Denke (talk • contribs)
Revised Stonehenge chronology
Looks like the dates need adjusting.[1]--Doug Weller (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Please use links on talk pages. - RoyBoy 16:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
^ Pearson, Mike (September 2007). "The Age of Stonehenge". Antiquity. 811 (313): 617–639. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
Tomb?
Similarities of Stonehenge to passage graves like Bryn Celli Ddu or dolmen portals suggests a question: Is it possible that Stonehenge is the incomplete or eroded remains of a large late-neolithic passage tomb? Stonehenge does stand in the middle of a large grave yard. The orientation of the Trilithon horseshoe to the Summer Solstice is like that of some passage graves. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)zbvhs
It seems unlikely that Stonehenge was meant to become a passage grave, as there is no evidence of earthworks beyond the ditch and bank, and it doesn't explain why the stones were transported such a distance (graves and long barrows seem to have been constructed from local materials - hence around Salisbury Plain they usually had wooden chambers). Although you are correct about the sun alignments, which seem to have been a feature of grave sites like Newgrange. Seeing as the latest evidence seems to suggest that Stonehenge was built as a burial site, this might be worth mentioning in the article if a decent linking source can be found. Although strictly speaking the original orientation of the earthworks was a little off of the solstice's.... Psychostevouk (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Stonehenge complex?
I tried editing this section as I thought it seemed a bit wrong, until I realised that it actually seems to make no sense at all and thought I'd better discuss it first! From the first para of 'History':
The Stonehenge complex was built in several construction phases spanning at least 3000 years, although there is evidence for activity both before and afterwards on the site, perhaps extending its time frame to 6500 years.
What exactly is this referring to? Does the 'Stonehenge complex' refer only to the main monument itself (roughly 3000-1500BC) or does it include such monuments as the Cursus (3500 BC- maybe 2500BC). If so that's a rough max of 2000 years, not 3000. Although Stonehenge shows plausible evidence of adaptation as late of the Roman period, it's not proven and not mentioned here, so we can't include that. All we have is the scroll trench (maybe 700BC). But that's still only 2500 years, unless there may have been something there before that I haven't heard of? Although the bones in the ditch are older than Stonehenge they can hardly be classed as an earlier feature. The Mesolithic post holes from 8000BC would indeed push the life of the monument to 6500 years if we accepted an end to the adaptation at 1500BC (thus killing the 3000 year bit), but its fair to say that they aren't part of Stonehenge (Stonehenge being everything inside the ditch and bank, which they are not - the post holes are a significantly earlier monument nearby). Might I recommend an amended para:
Stonehenge itself evolved in several construction phases spanning at least some 1500 years. However there is evidence of large scale construction both before and afterwards on and around the monument that perhaps extends the landscapes time frame to 6500 years.
Any thoughts?
2 other points:
Unfortunately with the removal of the semi protection vandalism seems to be up again.
Also, this years Stonehenge Riverside Project seems to have been one of the best ever. No refs yet, but if everything comes out as it seems to be this page may require some heavy rewrites next year!
Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Any objections to me changing it then? Psychostevouk (talk) 07:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a good change to me. And it is certainly time that semi-protection was put back. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Quick comment - what does the word "itself" add to the sentence? Stephenb(Talk) 08:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was writing it as an adaptation to the original para that didn't make much sense (the complex bit) so I wanted to distinguish between Stonehenge (the monument from 3000-1500BC comprising of everything within the ditch and bank) and everything else in the landscape. I thought it fitted with the new sentence then expanding to the landscape. Just thought it made the differentiation clearer. Changed it now but it can easily be removed if everyone thinks it should.
Looking at the history page I do think semi protection is justified, although I have no idea how to do this. Normally I'd go find out but I suspect you actually need to be an admin to do this. anyone know? Psychostevouk (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection really should be put back (I have no idea how to do this either!). The last dozen attempted edits have all been vandalism, mostly by repeat vandals. Surely enough is enough? Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Working through how to do it now.....Psychostevouk (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Stonehenge has been given semi protection for one month, so hopefully that'll slow some of the edits down. See what happens in November I guess! Psychostevouk (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
New Dates
I'm sure most of you will have seen this fairly sensationalist headline from the BBC claiming Stonehenge was started in 2300BC. For my own part I think this sort of work should be carefully considered before anyone over enthusiastically re-writes great swathes of the article. Geoff Wainwright and Tim Darvill dated a former bluestone socket. This doesn't necessarily mean that it was the first such stone socket at Stonehenge. In fact, a perfectly decent report from the Stonehenge Riverside Project has pointed out that the sarsens were raised much earlier. For my own part I'm unsure how Geoff and Tim have inferred that this one socket is the earliest at Stonehenge, and whether they, or the BBC decided that this pinpoints Stonehenge's beginnings. They don't even reveal which particular arrangement it is from - if it's the inner bluestone circle (which is where the trench appeared to be situated) then it has always been believed that this was the final bluestone arrangement - not the first. I think Harami2000's edit is perfect as it incorporates the latest findings but doesn't confuse things unnecessarily. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of academics react to this story... Just my 2 cents. Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Psychostevouk, and agreed; no /totally/ new chronologies quite yet! The introductory paragraph appeared to be an appropriate point at which to place a note rather than consider wholesale amendments across the article and no problems with any tweaking required to that wording to emphasize or reflect well-founded views as the situation develops. Cheers, David. Harami2000 (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
On that note, I've just reverted an edit from an anonymous user based on that report, then I saw this thread. The previous version seemed better, but this isn't my area so I'll defer to the "regulars". In any case, the US English in that edit needs to be changed to UK (the style of this article) as per MOS - that's what caught my attention. Cheers Freestyle-69 (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's more "news" on the BBC website. Not quite sure as to the method of incorporating both those p.o.v.s vs. the conventional viewpoint, but extending that opening section is probably still a sound approach and explaining that the dates below are for that conventional chronology? Any other ideas? :) Harami2000 (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
From my personal point of view, I find this project far more credible than the Darvill and Wainwright one! However, much as I would like to amend everything here to the new viewpoint (joke), it's worth noting that there is no radiocarbon dating for this. I think a fair bit of detail should definitely go into the Aubrey Hole page, and maybe a little here. I might be more inclined to put it in the Stonehenge 1 (ca. 3100 BC) section, perhaps with an amended line in the intro para - something like:
Archaeologists had believed that the iconic stone monument was erected around 2500 BC, as described in the chronology below. However some theories suggest that the first stones were not erected until 2400-2200 BC, whilst others suggest that bluestones may have been erected at the site as early as 3000 BC. (see phase 1 below).
That sentance could probably use a little work though. It's early and I haven't had any tea yet! Psychostevouk (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I've added the sentence (with slightly different grammar) and put a line in Stonehenge 1 about the Aubrey Holes and Bluestones. Hope everyone thinks they're ok. Psychostevouk (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
