Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Karlis

Understanding Stonehenge: Two Explanations

18 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Karlis

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
questionmark

Or, third option: the place to take the souls of the death for rebirth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tutankhaten-pasheri

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taun

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JGirl

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JGirl

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 by JGirl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

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 by Abramelin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JGirl

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sam

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.*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

According to the Maboginon it's a place where the Spirit realm and the Earthly one over lap, all the Gorsedds are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly

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 ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles

I agree with the building idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.