ES version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
71% Positive
Analyzed from 1108 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#stonehenge#years#ancient#theory#something#stones#more#ago#used#nearby
Discussion (44 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_holes#Archaeoastronomy_...
> new investigations since the 1960s have discredited Hawkins' ideas.
However, there are a lot of things that don't seem widely known in popular culture about Stonehenge that might colour perceptions about this theory, and the counters to it.
First, it's worth remembering the thing you look at today has been mucked about with for thousands of years. It's not "original". Depending on your definition of that word, it's either a comparatively modern fake, or the current evolution of something that's always evolving.
For perspective: the stones now have concrete bases. Officials were concerned in the 1920s that the "conservation work" being done at that time was starting to head into "faking" the monument. Cranes were used to "reassemble" the famous (c.f. Spinal Tap), "Great Trilithon" in 1958. Make your own mind up.
But let's just pull it back to post holes and the archaeology of what has been discovered in more recent decades, even in this century.
Archaeologists now know that the site evolved even in the earliest incarnations over thousands of years. There is also now evidence it should not just be seen as a single stone circle. Within the nearby - ~5 miles radius - landscape, there is evidence of other circles, roads, burial mounds, feasting sites, all settlements slowly being understood.
We also now know a lot more of nearby cremations and burials, some of high-status individuals, over the course of hundreds of years. Turns out people travelled from all over, including continental Europe, to visit Stonehenge over a very prolonged period of time. Women seem to have been particularly key to the site.
All of this suggests something complex within the cultural mindset of the neolithic people who built that landscape, and the subsequent populations that moved into it and adapted it. It's not just a stone circle used to predict/measure equinoxes or eclipses - as important as those things might have been to ancient peoples. The site carried weight.
Was it the ancient version of Mecca? Or the Temple on the Mount? Or was it something more trivial and akin to the modern (nearby-ish) Glastonbury festival or Burning Man?
We don't know. We will probably never know for sure unless ancient contemporaneous writing is discovered and understood. But we know it wasn't just a prehistoric "computer".
Like, it obviously had SOME purpose.
It took 1500 years to be established in its current form. It's pretty likely (to me at least) that the purpose of the year 1 work was different from year 1500.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_things_(Australia)
[1] https://youtu.be/mbyzgeee2mg
Stonehenge was one of the places they would do this.
Makes sense to make the meeting spot nice.
I think the same way looking at medieval cathedrals or Roman and Greek era theatres, collesiums, and agoras...
At least the Ottomans used the Parthenon as an arms depot, giving those stones some meaning.
(This is sarcasm)
* To provide work * To serve as a reminder of the power and authority of the church * To glorify God * To make sure all the other nearby kingdoms were aware of how much cooler you are than them
Cite required. Work in a pre-industrial agrarian society is ever-present, unless there's a drought. (Although in that case the coffin builders may need extra hands.)