Monday, May 6, 2024
Contact    |    RSS icon Twitter icon Facebook icon  
Unexplained Mysteries
You are viewing: Home > News > Archaeology & History > News story
Welcome Guest ( Login or Register )  
All ▾
Search Submit

Archaeology & History

Is Ales Stenar the Swedish Stonehenge ?

By T.K. Randall
April 20, 2012 · Comment icon 4 comments

Image Credit: CC 3.0 Fred J
A research team has found new evidence that Sweden's Ales Stenar is far older than previously thought.
The megalithic structure comprised of 59 huge boulders is located near the fishing village of Kåseberga and is thought to have been built about 1,000 years ago near the end of the Iron Age. But now researchers believe the site could have been built a lot earlier, up to 2,500 years ago, making it Sweden's own answer to Stonehenge. "We can now say Stonehenge has a younger sister, but she's so much more beautiful," said retired geologist Nils-Axel Mörner who co-authored the research.
Ancient Scandinavians dragged 59 boulders to a seaside cliff near what is now the Swedish fishing village of Kåseberga. They carefully arranged the massive stones — each weighing up to 4,000 pounds (1,800 kilograms) — in the outline of a 220-foot-long (67-meter) ship overlooking the Baltic Sea.


Source: Live Science | Comments (4)




Other news and articles
Recent comments on this story
Comment icon #1 Posted by Conrad Clough 12 years ago
Archaeologists using radiocarbon dating have calculated that Ales Stenar was built about 1,400 years agocomments like this always amuse me... since you can't date stone that way (and even if you could do so, using one of the other dating methods that works on stone it would only tell you the age of the rock, not when it was placed there by men)... I assume that they used organic material found at the site to do their testing, but it would be nice if the article mentioned what they actually radiocarbon dated.
Comment icon #2 Posted by siggiesis 12 years ago
I was left wondering what exactly they radiocarbon-dated. Even if they took debris from old structures or pits around the site, it can still be unreliable. Perhaps the geologist has a point about it being older for some (shocking) academic reason. Sometimes archaeologists annoy me with their god complexes.
Comment icon #3 Posted by Leonardo 12 years ago
comments like this always amuse me... since you can't date stone that way (and even if you could do so, using one of the other dating methods that works on stone it would only tell you the age of the rock, not when it was placed there by men)... I assume that they used organic material found at the site to do their testing, but it would be nice if the article mentioned what they actually radiocarbon dated. It's worth pointing out the sentence containing this claim was written by a journalist, not an archaeologist. It's quite possible the archaeologists did not use carbon-dating to date the age... [More]
Comment icon #4 Posted by Melo 12 years ago
Thanks Stillwaters, never heard of it befroe. Amazing. http://news.discovery.com/history/stonehenge-sweden-120419.html


Please Login or Register to post a comment.


Our new book is out now!
Book cover

The Unexplained Mysteries
Book of Weird News

 AVAILABLE NOW 

Take a walk on the weird side with this compilation of some of the weirdest stories ever to grace the pages of a newspaper.

Click here to learn more

We need your help!
Patreon logo

Support us on Patreon

 BONUS CONTENT 

For less than the cost of a cup of coffee, you can gain access to a wide range of exclusive perks including our popular 'Lost Ghost Stories' series.

Click here to learn more

Top 10 trending mysteries
Recent news and articles