UM-Bot Posted June 29, 2014 #1 Share Posted June 29, 2014 A leading historian has claimed that the iconic monument was 'as much a triumph as a disaster'. One of the world's most famous Neolithic monuments, Stonehenge has been a site of great importance and intrigue for thousands of years. Read More: http://www.unexplain...cowboy-builders 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldorado Posted June 29, 2014 #2 Share Posted June 29, 2014 I heard it began life as a patio, laid by a big guy named Declan and wee guy named Seamus. Disclaimer: My sources though have been known to make stuff up. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefenceMinisterMishkin Posted June 29, 2014 #3 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Stonehenge is still awesome! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted June 29, 2014 #4 Share Posted June 29, 2014 “When they put up one of those great sandstone blocks in the outer circle, it slipped when it was being put in its hole, fell over and broke in half." While I acknowledge the article doesn't state whether there is evidence for what Prof. Hutton claims, I don't see how he can claim the sandstone block "fell over and broke in half"? Why could the breaking of the block not be attributed to 'frost-fracturing'? If the Professor has evidence for the fall, I'd accept his theory - otherwise all I see is an attempt to push an unsubstantiated opinion. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taun Posted June 29, 2014 #5 Share Posted June 29, 2014 So now I have this mental image of a bunch of hairy, neolithic, animal hide wearing people standing around when Stonehenge is finally finished, yelling "Yeeeeeeeehah!".... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfonso Posted June 29, 2014 #6 Share Posted June 29, 2014 (edited) why don't you ask dom? Edited June 29, 2014 by alfonso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrooma Posted June 29, 2014 #7 Share Posted June 29, 2014 i'd like to know which of the uprights he means. i know pretty much every inch of the site, but i'm struggling to think of a stone in the outer ring of sarcens that has broken in half, been re-stood, and fallen down again. if memory serves, such a stone is no longer there, so i'd be interested to know where professor hutton got his information from.... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Greenman Posted June 29, 2014 #8 Share Posted June 29, 2014 I was looking for another source for the article, but couldn't find anything that explains in a more detail. I found this but couldn't get the full article without paying for it. I hate that. http://www.hnn.us/article/51346 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefenceMinisterMishkin Posted June 29, 2014 #9 Share Posted June 29, 2014 This guy was obviously high as a kite.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrooma Posted June 29, 2014 #10 Share Posted June 29, 2014 (edited) I was looking for another source for the article, but couldn't find anything that explains in a more detail. I found this but couldn't get the full article without paying for it. I hate that. http://www.hnn.us/article/51346 . thanks for the link GMG, it slightly clears things up. the stone he's referring to is the L/H upright of the Great Trilithon, a stone from the inner horseshoe of trilithons, not the outer ring as first stated. this stone, was thought to have fallen down sometime during the late 1500s, and certainly didn't 'fall down, split in half, and was hastily re-erected in a prehistoric botch-job during the builders' lifetime. the reason it fell was due to the fact that to make the upright level, the L/H upright was only buried to a depth of 4ft instead of the usual 7-8ft. it managed to remain upright for around 4000yrs, which is pretty impressive for a bunch of 'wreckless cowboy builders'.... . Edited June 29, 2014 by shrooma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted June 29, 2014 #11 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Cowboy builders? No. Swineherd builders? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefenceMinisterMishkin Posted June 29, 2014 #12 Share Posted June 29, 2014 I remember an episode of *cough Mystery Hunters where they concluded Stone Henge was a concert venue.. If that's the case, maybe it was never intended to be a permanant structure.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ancient astronaut Posted June 29, 2014 #13 Share Posted June 29, 2014 I don't think they will ever really figure out who built it (Stonehenge). Every year they (those who study these things) come out with about a dozen new theories on who built it. My guess is someone who died along time ago. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jawjalou Posted June 29, 2014 #14 Share Posted June 29, 2014 What the hell do they mean cowboy builders? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldorado Posted June 29, 2014 #15 Share Posted June 29, 2014 (edited) What the hell do they mean cowboy builders? It's a UK phrase for amateurs. (crap, pretend builders) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/cowboy Edited June 29, 2014 by Eldorado Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefenceMinisterMishkin Posted June 29, 2014 #16 Share Posted June 29, 2014 We all know it was Willy and Wild Bill from Mountain Monsters that built stonehenge.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneStar13 Posted June 30, 2014 #17 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I would refer that historian to 'Civilization One' by Christopher Knight & Alan Butler. Within it they describe a common system of measurement they termed ' The Megalithic Yard' with which many of the world's ancient structures were constructed, including Stonehenge. The unit discovered is fundamental to the Sun, Moon, & the Earth, suggesting a level of understanding & sophistication beyond contemporary assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrooma Posted June 30, 2014 #18 Share Posted June 30, 2014 (edited) I would refer that historian to 'Civilization One' by Christopher Knight & Alan Butler. Within it they describe a common system of measurement they termed ' The Megalithic Yard' with which many of the world's ancient structures were constructed, including Stonehenge. The unit discovered is fundamental to the Sun, Moon, & the Earth, suggesting a level of understanding & sophistication beyond contemporary assumptions. . the megalithic yard was first postulated by Alexander Thom in the early '60s, after surveying hundreds of prehistoric sites. the measurement, he concluded, was 2.72ft. his measurements however, have been called into question, as further surveys have revealed that his measurements have been out by as much as 3in per 'yard'. what he actually did was take an average over the sites to arrive at his figure, which, in engineering terms, is very highly suspect. . welcome to UM LoneStar. . . (edit for multiple post.) Edited June 30, 2014 by shrooma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted July 1, 2014 #19 Share Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) What the hell do they mean cowboy builders? Among our Brit cousins "Cowboy" is a derogatory slur. They don't understand that "The Cowboy" is an American Icon, and that their readers across the pond might take offense. Edited July 1, 2014 by John Wesley Boyd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGirl Posted July 2, 2014 #20 Share Posted July 2, 2014 not much meat in that dish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldorado Posted July 2, 2014 #21 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Among our Brit cousins "Cowboy" is a derogatory slur. They don't understand that "The Cowboy" is an American Icon, and that their readers across the pond might take offense. Word Origin & History Brit U.S. colloquial shortening of Britisher or Briton, 1901, formerly (like Britisher) highly offensive to Englishmen traveling in the States, who regarded it as yet another instance of the "odious vulgarism" of the Americans. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/brit We all choose what offends us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted July 3, 2014 #22 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Ah, yes those Americanisms, so quaintly provincial. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted July 4, 2014 #23 Share Posted July 4, 2014 (edited) Word Origin & History Brit U.S. colloquial shortening of Britisher or Briton, 1901, formerly (like Britisher) highly offensive to Englishmen traveling in the States, who regarded it as yet another instance of the "odious vulgarism" of the Americans. http://dictionary.re...com/browse/brit We all choose what offends us. An equivalent pejorative to the term Yank. cool. Edited July 4, 2014 by John Wesley Boyd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldorado Posted July 4, 2014 #24 Share Posted July 4, 2014 An equivalent pejorative to the term Yank. cool. We can play this indefinitely. I'll hasten it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_names_for_the_British http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_terms_per_nationality#Americans It's a 'cool' world we live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmccr8 Posted July 6, 2014 #25 Share Posted July 6, 2014 I've done a fair bit of the cowboy way over the years and what I can say it's not about the kind of boots your wearing it's about how you wear the boots your wearing. jmccr8 1 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