Here is an interesting link I've found that has to do with Stonehenge and the restoration that was done to it during the last century.

www.msnbc.com/news/513457....asp&cp1=1

I have never had the oppurtunity to visit England, although I have always been fascinated by its history, Stonehenge obviously being one favorite subject. What are your thoughts as to this article? Is the Stonehenge today radically different than the original? Was the restoration merely cosmetic? Was there historical data and information that justified the positioning of the massive stones, or was it merely someone's interpretation as to how the site may have looked in the past? There is much written on Stonehenge and how the structure relates to astronomical events, but was this always the case or has the structure been altered to fit the theory? I'm just curious as to what your opinion might be, considering Stonehenge is as remarkable a structure as the Egyptian pyramids.

Magikman

Stonehenge is one of the most incredible structures in the world, and is surrounded by mystery and intreague. The current layout of the stones at the site, is likely to be the result of many thousands of years worth of use, and it's likely that different generations may have used Stonehenge for their own purposes, unaware of what previous generations may have used it for. In this case, it may be many people over thousands of years that have resulted in the different positioning of the stones, combined with apparant recent work which may have rendered it considerably unlike any of the original layouts.
Unfortunately, the original purpose and layout of the stone circle may be lost in time forever.

Just by coincidence there was a short feature on our local news about Stonehenge and the restoration it has under gone. There was a lot of work done in 1901 - re-setting stones that were tipped over and/or leaning severely, and then again in the early 1930's when concrete was used to reinforce stone bases. A painting of how the site looked in the late 1800's was shown to contrast it against how the site looked after restoration. The difference in appearance is striking, but the report did not mention what historical data if any was used in the placing of the stones. The main emphasis of the report dealt with the fact that the Stonehenge historical society does not disclose the restoration in any of its literature available to the thousands of tourists that visit the site every year. It showed interviews with several people who voiced their surprise to this revelation.

What you said makes a lot of sense. I would think that after 4000 years the real wonder is that the structure is even around, much less recognizable in any form.

Magikman

I am fairly interested in Stonehenge myself so when I visited Devon last year I drove past Salisbury Plain to see if I could glimpse it.

I was very surprised to find that driving along the road I could not only glimpse it but see it in all it's (redesigned?) glory as the road goes right past.

Then the traffic stopped moving due to roadworks just as I was directly inline with the stones, so I grabbed my camera to take a photo - I had a perfect view of the stones in close up but unfortunately the camera broke and I was unable to take the picture.

I am not suggesting some mysterious force broke my camera, probably just a coincidence as there are thousands of pictures of Stonehenge about, but it was a shame.

Finally I noticed a peculiar feel about the place, Salisbury Plain is quite remote and deserted in any case, but it was more than that. A strange sort of feeling that I can't describe fully.

Has any body else noticed this 'feeling'?

Hi all..

I too have been to Stonehenge several times. What I think adds to the mystery is the alignment of the stones on an ancient Ley Line 'Stonehenge Ley', which stretches 22 miles.
Ley Lines are an interesting topic. There is a theory that says that they are created from a change within the Earths magnetic field. ??? It appears that the most sound way of detecting a ley line is via dowsing..

Here's a link with more info on the Stonehenge Ley Line        http://www.leyhunter.com/arch/tlh11.htm

I read that the stonehenges we see today were built later than we thought. According to the latest studies, the current monument stands on the site of an earlier simple henge, constructed approximately 2200 BC. Today's Stonehenge is believed to be built in 1500 BC. It is about two thousand years younger than the earliest Scottish stone circles and three thousand years younger than the menhirs and dolmens in Brittany!

Found this link today, and just wondered if it was the one you intended to show with your original post Magik.  If not, it's still an interesting acticle about the rebuilding of Stonehenge.  :se

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicstonehenge.htm

:sg

Tommy,

  Yes, the content is very similar to the information that was included in the first link, thank you for posting it. Whats great is that it actually contains a picture of the painting I was talking about that shows what Stonehenge looked like in the 1800's as opposed to how it looks today, plus quite a bit more information concerning the various 'restorations' the site has undergone during the last century.

Magikman

just yesterday i heard a rumour that a skeleton had been found two miles from stonehenge.is it true? who knows?

Cerberus,

 No, not a rumor, it's an actual fact;

CLICK HERE

Magikman  :sg

hmmm interesting links,
Going  back to cameras not working near Stonehenge I found a few years back that whenever someone tried to take a photo of me in front of it, the photo would never come out so I'm not suprised that sometimes cameras don't work there.

           Thanks MM!

       That was a fascinating story,  a great discovery!
        But I noticed it was written in May.  Has anything more been discovered or revealed about this find?   :s6


       (sorry,  I was referring to the burial site)  :-[

KC,

 You may come up with some current information if you do a search using the words 'King of Stonehenge' or 'Wessex Archaeology' in a search engine.

Magikman

          Thanks MM!!  

congrats on forum legend kc  :s06 :s06 :s06 :s06 :s06 :s06 :s06 :s06 :s06 :s06 :s06

            thanks cerberus   ;D

i went to visit stone henge and its wa the best structure i have ever seen nd i think i felt something

Allo Folks Alopogies if this lot is a bit disjointed, I'm typing mostly from memory, partly from websites and partly from my own book collection ...

I've been to Stonehenge many times over the years and yes, it has changed dramatically... The standing stones etc. are still in their original positions (give or take a few inches either way), but the 'feel' of the site has altered drastically... When I 1st went there, the 'aura' to the place felt old but 'warm', welcoming like. When the Military took over and surrounded it with razor wire, it went totally cold and uninviting. Nowadays, you can still feel the age of the site, and the surrounding countryside, but it's 'neutral', for want of a better description

The whole area is now owned by The National Trust, but was formerly Ministry of Defense land. When I first saw the henge as a child, it was surrounded by an ancient wooden 2 or 3 rail fence that could almost have been mediaeval from the state it was in ... In later years when I saw it (70's-80's), it was MOD land and surrounded by razor wire!!!... The site was still open to the public but that wire made the whole site feel totally 'negative' I haven't been past in recent years but I think it's now back to an ordinary wire fence again...

One of the odder things about the henge site is that, after extensive archaeological digs around the whole area, not one tool, pot sherd or anything has been found, although traces of a small village dating to approximately the time of building was found nearby...

The henge does line up with the solstices etc. and haven't been moved into line to do so, they were built like that originally There's another henge close by (approx 4 miles) called Woodhenge that was made of wooden trunks, I think this one was dated earlier than Stonehenge but don't quote me on that

The stones were placed in their original positions after extensive archaeological research to determine the holes by soil variations and compaction. Unfortunately, during Victorian times and earlier, visitors were allowed to chip bits off the stones for souvenirs!!! Thank a God that was stopped!!!

I don't know exactly where it's situated, but somewhere very close by, is a modern replica of Stonehenge, made out of expanded polystyrene blocks, carved and painted to look like the original stones and built to look like the henge did originally, with all the stones and lintels in place... We had a tv documentary about it, and a group of students built it to prove whether stonehenge was an accurate observatory or not... Too many stones have either fallen or gone walkabout to determine the accuracy of the original so they rebuilt it instead It turns out to be correct, the original henge was accurate for mid-summer and mid-winter solstices...

What I find the oddest thing about Stonehenge, as you approach it, it looks remarkably small, compared to the pictures and photo's etc... When you get among the stones and walk around, it looks HUGE!!! I mean, really massive!!!

If anyone reading this ever gets the opportunity to visit the site, do so!!! You'll never forget it, neither will you forget that 'feeling of ancientness' to the site ...

But don't forget to visit nearby Avebury; Stonehenge doesn't compare with Avebury. If only the whole Avebury site - henge, 3 stone circles, and the two stone avenues etc - could be recreated

Avebury is just weird!!! I've been there in winter and the stones feel warm to the touch!!! I don't mean warm as able to warm yourself up with, but they are always a few degrees warmer than the ground or surrounding area...

Although not as imposing as Stonehenge at first glance, as you walk around the circle, you realise it's big enough for a village inside it.. In fact, there IS a village inside it With a VERY excellent pub!!!

Another nearby 'Old Place' is Silbury Hill, the largest man made mound in the Europe and dating to around 2660BC... Silbury Hill Info Here...

I love living in the UK , everywhere has ancient history to it

Stonehenge is sadly overrated, to the extent that when American friends of mine visit I advise them not to even bother with it. Go to Avebury, it's a much more incredible experience, and IMHO just as impressive as the initial "wow" you get at Stonehenge. The difference is that with Stonehenge once that "wow" goes away all you're left with is too many tourists and fences. At Avebury you just keep going "wow". Avebury is the largest stone circle in the world, surrounded by a massive bank and dtich, has two stone avenues coming off it (one of which is sadly lost), two more stone circles within it, a giant cove, a mysterious stone linear structure; and within easy walking distance is the largest prehistoric man-made mound in Europe (Silbury hill) and a open chambered long barrow. Stonehenge - pah!


One quarter of the great circle at Avebury, and part of one of the inner circles. In the foreground are two massive entrance stones


The cove at Avebury, seen against the church at dusk. The taller stone is about 18feet


Silbury Hill seen from West Kennet Long Barrow


On the restoration of both Stonehenge and Avebury:
The article presented are somewhat sensationalist. For example, the second article says "...following revelations that nearby Avebury was a total 20s and 30s rebuild...". In fact, that's no revelation at all, it's been common knowledge for years, I've known it since I first visited Avebury as a kid!

What the article fails to make clear is that Alexander Keiller, the archaeologist who "rebuilt" Avebury, spent years and years hunting for the stones which had been toppled and buried, finding archaeological evidence of their original holes (almost all of which were next to the recovered stones - they hadn't been moved), and comparing his own archaeological findings with maps and sketches drawn of the monument before all of the stones were lost. Then, once he was sure, the stones were re-erected in an upright position. Brian Edwards, the man at the centre of these new "discoveries" basically appears to be a charlatan, trying to make himself famous by sensationalising a story which really isn't that big!

The same is more or less true of Stonehenge. The way the articles come across is that a century ago a bunch of idiots found a heap of stones lying in a field and stood them upright in an interesting pattern. This is not the case. Stones were not moved, they were not arranged in fanciful positions, they were merely re-erected into an upright position from the angle at which they had originally fallen. Neither is there any doubt about the cap stones of the trilithons. Again the article comes across as saying that the renovators just stuck them up because they thought it looked good, whereas in fact the incredible mortice and tenon joints of the stonehenge trilithons make it very clear which stones had others joined on to them.

An idea of Brian Edwards' idiotic agenda can be gleaned from his comment "It has been created by the heritage industry and is NOT the creation of prehistoric people. What we saw at the Millennium is less than 50 years old". He's just trying to make a name for himself by creating a media frenzy out of a very small issue. Stonehenge IS the creation of a prehistoric people: just because it has been restored to a certain extent and has had preservation work done on it does NOT mean that it's no longer the same. Nothing has been changed, rather, some of the changes which have occured in the last few millenia have been undone.

Sorry, this is a classic case of mountains out of molehills, and people like Brian Edwards should be drowned at birth.

I went to Stonehenge a couple of years ago, and took many photos. But then again my camera is manual, so maybe its only the battery operated ones?