Karlis Posted October 12, 2012 #1 Share Posted October 12, 2012 The following proposed "solutions" as to why Stonehenge was built -- to unite a land or as a destination to heal the sick -- seem extremely improbable to me; *in my opinion*. Please discuss, Karlis -=-=-=- Was the prehistoric monument built to unite a land or as a destination to heal the sick? The new laser findings appear to be compatible with two main theories taking shape in recent years to explain the monument's purpose. According to archaeologist Mike Parker Pearson, head of the Stonehenge Riverside Project, the iconic monument was built as a grand act of union after a long period of conflict between east and west Britain. Another theory, posed by archaeologists Geoff Wainwright and Timothy Darvill, says Stonehenge was a destination to which the sick traveled from around Europe to be healed by its magical powers. Read more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 12, 2012 #2 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Or, third option: the place to take the souls of the death for rebirth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tutankhaten-pasheri Posted October 12, 2012 #3 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I would think as monument to, presumably, political union is not valid. Surely in those days that would be done by marrige. Is there even any evidence to suggest that such a large part of iron age Britain was a single kingdom? When Ceasar appeared they were certainly not "united". I think we will never know why it was built. The best we can do is make educated guesses and say that some form of astrological process was involved. Over the centuries the purpose may have changed anyway, for instance when the druid culture arrived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cormac mac airt Posted October 12, 2012 #4 Share Posted October 12, 2012 If it was the first reason (act of union) it really wouldn't have had much, if any, impact on the rest of England IMO. Examples being the sites of Skara Brae and the Ness of Brodgar in Orkney, where the local societies appear to have done very well for themselves without needing an act of union. cormac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 12, 2012 #5 Share Posted October 12, 2012 If it was the first reason (act of union) it really wouldn't have had much, if any, impact on the rest of England IMO. Examples being the sites of Skara Brae and the Ness of Brodgar in Orkney, where the local societies appear to have done very well for themselves without needing an act of union. cormac Where the evidence of builder from all over Europe hardly speaks for a nationalistic endeavor, rather a scientific or spiritual one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taun Posted October 12, 2012 #6 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I was always under the belief that Stonehenge was symbolic of death as an aspect of life and Woodhenge (which is nearby if I'm not mistaken) was symbolic of Life... both used for appropriate rituals by the same peoples... It seems as though the person(s) coming up with this new idea may be projecting modern readings on a very ancient society - sort of an Ancient EU... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGirl Posted October 12, 2012 #7 Share Posted October 12, 2012 every time i see a picture of stonehenge my mind says that it was a building. it had a roof over it, perhaps not all of it but i imagine a roofed building there. no i'm not psychic, i just get that impression. always did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted October 12, 2012 #8 Share Posted October 12, 2012 The following proposed "solutions" as to why Stonehenge was built -- to unite a land or as a destination to heal the sick -- seem extremely improbable to me; *in my opinion*. Please discuss, Karlis -=-=-=- Was the prehistoric monument built to unite a land or as a destination to heal the sick? The new laser findings appear to be compatible with two main theories taking shape in recent years to explain the monument's purpose. According to archaeologist Mike Parker Pearson, head of the Stonehenge Riverside Project, the iconic monument was built as a grand act of union after a long period of conflict between east and west Britain. Another theory, posed by archaeologists Geoff Wainwright and Timothy Darvill, says Stonehenge was a destination to which the sick traveled from around Europe to be healed by its magical powers. Read more The Stonehenge site was already occupied around 7000 BC. I didn't see that in the article. I have said in the Doggerland thread that it might have been a 'death cult' from the start. "Around 7000 BC" could as easily mean 6200 BC (taking the carbondating error into account), and the ones creating the site would have been refugees or survivors of the Storegga Tsunami that flooded Doggerland/island. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted October 30, 2012 #9 Share Posted October 30, 2012 every time i see a picture of stonehenge my mind says that it was a building. it had a roof over it, perhaps not all of it but i imagine a roofed building there. no i'm not psychic, i just get that impression. always did. Twelve reasons why Stonehenge was a building http://structuralarchaeology.blogspot.nl/2012/03/twelve-reasons-why-stonehenge-was.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGirl Posted October 30, 2012 #10 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) Twelve reasons why Stonehenge was a building http://structuralarc...ehenge-was.html [media=] very interesting - thank you! i dont' see how his theory has any less weight than the more accepted ones; it seemed that the one 'expert' that was willing to discuss his theory (in the first video) discounts it simply because it puts his own theory to question. i must say i envisioned a roof system a bit different than that, but i'm no architect lol Edited October 30, 2012 by JGirl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted October 30, 2012 #11 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) Many times someone from a different discipline can come up with more sane and realistic ideas than historians do. Architects, engineers, chemists, and so on don't have that bias many historians have. They tend to come up with practical solutions no historian would ever dream of. But I am not saying that what I posted here today is the truth, it's just an alternative way of dealing with a 'mystery'. . Edited October 30, 2012 by Abramelin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGirl Posted October 30, 2012 #12 Share Posted October 30, 2012 But I am not saying that what I posted here today is the truth, it's just an alternative way of dealing with a 'mystery'. . understood - the truth can't be known with regard to stonehenge unless more evidence or information/historical references are found. we can speculate all we like, armchair enthusiasts or professionals, but it's still speculation. i like the idea of a roofed structure though, it makes more sense to me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Sam Posted November 19, 2012 #13 Share Posted November 19, 2012 I always pondered if those stone hedges were buildings at one time, like a foundation, but the wood eroded away leaving the foundation still standing which baffles people today. Possibility the stone heads are foundations left over from an tribe that used it as a meeting hall of the locals there. *Shrugs.* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted November 19, 2012 #14 Share Posted November 19, 2012 According to the Maboginon it's a place where the Spirit realm and the Earthly one over lap, all the Gorsedds are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightly Posted November 20, 2012 #15 Share Posted November 20, 2012 According to the Maboginon it's a place where the Spirit realm and the Earthly one over lap, all the Gorsedds are. hmm ya, like a church? .. and a sacred calendar too? to keep track of the other heavenly beings .. like the sun and moon and stars * probly called it ' the 2nd cosmological church ' .. [ BINGO Thursdays nights at 7:00 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted November 20, 2012 #16 Share Posted November 20, 2012 hmm ya, like a church? No, more of a marker for where there's a crossover between the realms of man and spirit, it's a place where one can visit the other easily and repeatedly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightly Posted November 21, 2012 #17 Share Posted November 21, 2012 No, more of a marker for where there's a crossover between the realms of man and spirit, it's a place where one can visit the other easily and repeatedly. ok, i can go along with that. Still, isn't that sort of what ^ people think is happening in 'church' ? Anyway, the place was obviously of great importance to those who built it in it's various phases and did 'stuff' there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Posted November 21, 2012 #18 Share Posted November 21, 2012 I agree with the building idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now